TY - JOUR
T1 - Diagnostic accuracy of the Finnish Diabetes Risk Score (FINDRISC) for undiagnosed T2DM in Peruvian population
AU - Bernabe-Ortiz, Antonio
AU - Perel, Pablo
AU - Miranda, Juan Jaime
AU - Smeeth, Liam
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2018 The Author(s)
PY - 2018/12
Y1 - 2018/12
N2 - Aims: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of the Finnish Diabetes Risk Score (FINDRISC) for undiagnosed T2DM and to compare its performance with the Latin-American FINDRISC (LA-FINDRISC) and the Peruvian Risk Score. Materials and methods: A population-based study was conducted. T2DM and undiagnosed T2DM were defined using oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). Risk scores assessed were FINDRISC, LA-FINDRISC and Peruvian Risk Score. Diagnostic accuracy of risk scores was estimated using the c-statistic and the area under the ROC curve (aROC). A simplified version of FINDRISC was also derived. Results: Data from 1609 individuals, mean age 48.2 (SD: 10.6), 810 (50.3%) women, were collected. A total of 176 (11.0%; 95%CI: 9.4%–12.5%) were classified as having T2DM, and 71 (4.7%; 95%CI: 3.7%–5.8%) were classified as having undiagnosed T2DM. Diagnostic accuracy of the FINDRISC (aROC = 0.69), LA-FINDRISC (aROC = 0.68), and Peruvian Risk Score (aROC = 0.64) was similar (p = 0.15). The simplified FINDRISC, with 4 variables, had a slightly better performance (aROC = 0.71) than the other scores. Conclusion: The performance of FINDRISC, LA-FINDRISC and Peruvian Risk Score for undiagnosed T2DM was similar. A simplified FINDRISC can perform as well or better for undiagnosed T2DM. The FINDRISC may be useful to detect cases of undiagnosed T2DM in resource-constrained settings.
AB - Aims: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of the Finnish Diabetes Risk Score (FINDRISC) for undiagnosed T2DM and to compare its performance with the Latin-American FINDRISC (LA-FINDRISC) and the Peruvian Risk Score. Materials and methods: A population-based study was conducted. T2DM and undiagnosed T2DM were defined using oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). Risk scores assessed were FINDRISC, LA-FINDRISC and Peruvian Risk Score. Diagnostic accuracy of risk scores was estimated using the c-statistic and the area under the ROC curve (aROC). A simplified version of FINDRISC was also derived. Results: Data from 1609 individuals, mean age 48.2 (SD: 10.6), 810 (50.3%) women, were collected. A total of 176 (11.0%; 95%CI: 9.4%–12.5%) were classified as having T2DM, and 71 (4.7%; 95%CI: 3.7%–5.8%) were classified as having undiagnosed T2DM. Diagnostic accuracy of the FINDRISC (aROC = 0.69), LA-FINDRISC (aROC = 0.68), and Peruvian Risk Score (aROC = 0.64) was similar (p = 0.15). The simplified FINDRISC, with 4 variables, had a slightly better performance (aROC = 0.71) than the other scores. Conclusion: The performance of FINDRISC, LA-FINDRISC and Peruvian Risk Score for undiagnosed T2DM was similar. A simplified FINDRISC can perform as well or better for undiagnosed T2DM. The FINDRISC may be useful to detect cases of undiagnosed T2DM in resource-constrained settings.
KW - Diabetes mellitus, type 2
KW - Diagnostic test
KW - Glucose tolerance test
KW - Risk assessment
KW - Screening
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85051636120&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.pcd.2018.07.015
DO - 10.1016/j.pcd.2018.07.015
M3 - Artículo
C2 - 30131300
AN - SCOPUS:85051636120
SN - 1751-9918
VL - 12
SP - 517
EP - 525
JO - Primary Care Diabetes
JF - Primary Care Diabetes
IS - 6
ER -