Journal article 931 views
Different type 2 diabetes risk assessments predict dissimilar numbers at ‘high risk’: a retrospective analysis of diabetes risk-assessment tools
,
Daniel Turner,
Kerry Morgan,
Michael Thomas,
Sally P Williams,
Meurig Williams,
Sam Rice,
Jeffrey W Stephens
British Journal of General Practice, Volume: 65, Issue: 641, Pages: e852 - e860
Swansea University Author:
Richard Bracken
Full text not available from this repository: check for access using links below.
DOI (Published version): 10.3399/bjgp15X687661
Abstract
Background Use of a validated risk-assessment tool to identify individuals at high risk of developing type 2 diabetes is currently recommended. It is under-reported, however, whether a different risk tool alters the predicted risk of an individual.Aim This study explored any differences between comm...
| Published in: | British Journal of General Practice |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0960-1643 1478-5242 |
| Published: |
2015
|
| Online Access: |
Check full text
|
| URI: | https://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa50347 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Abstract: |
Background Use of a validated risk-assessment tool to identify individuals at high risk of developing type 2 diabetes is currently recommended. It is under-reported, however, whether a different risk tool alters the predicted risk of an individual.Aim This study explored any differences between commonly used validated risk-assessment tools for type 2 diabetes.Design and setting Cross-sectional analysis of individuals who participated in a workplace-based risk assessment in Carmarthenshire, South Wales.Method Retrospective analysis of 676 individuals (389 females and 287 males) who participated in a workplace-based diabetes risk-assessment initiative. Ten-year risk of type 2 diabetes was predicted using the validated QDiabetes®, Leicester Risk Assessment (LRA), FINDRISC, and Cambridge Risk Score (CRS) algorithms.Results Differences between the risk-assessment tools were apparent following retrospective analysis of individuals. CRS categorised the highest proportion (13.6%) of individuals at ‘high risk’ followed by FINDRISC (6.6%), QDiabetes (6.1%), and, finally, the LRA was the most conservative risk tool (3.1%). Following further analysis by sex, over one-quarter of males were categorised at high risk using CRS (25.4%), whereas a greater percentage of females were categorised as high risk using FINDRISC (7.8%).Conclusion The adoption of a different valid risk-assessment tool can alter the predicted risk of an individual and caution should be used to identify those individuals who really are at high risk of type 2 diabetes. |
|---|---|
| College: |
Faculty of Science and Engineering |
| Issue: |
641 |
| Start Page: |
e852 |
| End Page: |
e860 |