No Cover Image

Journal article 192 views

Different type 2 diabetes risk assessments predict dissimilar numbers at ‘high risk’: a retrospective analysis of diabetes risk-assessment tools / Benjamin J Gray; Richard Bracken; 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.

Check full text

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...

Full description

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: College of Engineering
Issue: 641
Start Page: e852
End Page: e860