No Cover Image

Journal article 1350 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 Orcid Logo, 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 Orcid Logo

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
first_indexed 2019-05-14T14:00:18Z
last_indexed 2019-05-14T14:00:18Z
id cronfa50347
recordtype SURis
fullrecord <?xml version="1.0"?><rfc1807><datestamp>2019-05-14T10:33:42.2669523</datestamp><bib-version>v2</bib-version><id>50347</id><entry>2019-05-14</entry><title>Different type 2 diabetes risk assessments predict dissimilar numbers at &#x2018;high risk&#x2019;: a retrospective analysis of diabetes risk-assessment tools</title><swanseaauthors><author><sid>f5da81cd18adfdedb2ccb845bddc12f7</sid><ORCID>0000-0002-6986-6449</ORCID><firstname>Richard</firstname><surname>Bracken</surname><name>Richard Bracken</name><active>true</active><ethesisStudent>false</ethesisStudent></author></swanseaauthors><date>2019-05-14</date><deptcode>EAAS</deptcode><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&#xAE;, 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 &#x2018;high risk&#x2019; 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.</abstract><type>Journal Article</type><journal>British Journal of General Practice</journal><volume>65</volume><journalNumber>641</journalNumber><paginationStart>e852</paginationStart><paginationEnd>e860</paginationEnd><publisher/><issnPrint>0960-1643</issnPrint><issnElectronic>1478-5242</issnElectronic><keywords/><publishedDay>31</publishedDay><publishedMonth>12</publishedMonth><publishedYear>2015</publishedYear><publishedDate>2015-12-31</publishedDate><doi>10.3399/bjgp15X687661</doi><url/><notes/><college>COLLEGE NANME</college><department>Engineering and Applied Sciences School</department><CollegeCode>COLLEGE CODE</CollegeCode><DepartmentCode>EAAS</DepartmentCode><institution>Swansea University</institution><apcterm/><lastEdited>2019-05-14T10:33:42.2669523</lastEdited><Created>2019-05-14T10:32:44.9409362</Created><path><level id="1">Faculty of Science and Engineering</level><level id="2">School of Aerospace, Civil, Electrical, General and Mechanical Engineering - Sport and Exercise Sciences</level></path><authors><author><firstname>Benjamin J</firstname><surname>Gray</surname><order>1</order></author><author><firstname>Richard</firstname><surname>Bracken</surname><orcid>0000-0002-6986-6449</orcid><order>2</order></author><author><firstname>Daniel</firstname><surname>Turner</surname><order>3</order></author><author><firstname>Kerry</firstname><surname>Morgan</surname><order>4</order></author><author><firstname>Michael</firstname><surname>Thomas</surname><order>5</order></author><author><firstname>Sally P</firstname><surname>Williams</surname><order>6</order></author><author><firstname>Meurig</firstname><surname>Williams</surname><order>7</order></author><author><firstname>Sam</firstname><surname>Rice</surname><order>8</order></author><author><firstname>Jeffrey W</firstname><surname>Stephens</surname><order>9</order></author></authors><documents/><OutputDurs/></rfc1807>
spelling 2019-05-14T10:33:42.2669523 v2 50347 2019-05-14 Different type 2 diabetes risk assessments predict dissimilar numbers at ‘high risk’: a retrospective analysis of diabetes risk-assessment tools f5da81cd18adfdedb2ccb845bddc12f7 0000-0002-6986-6449 Richard Bracken Richard Bracken true false 2019-05-14 EAAS 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. Journal Article British Journal of General Practice 65 641 e852 e860 0960-1643 1478-5242 31 12 2015 2015-12-31 10.3399/bjgp15X687661 COLLEGE NANME Engineering and Applied Sciences School COLLEGE CODE EAAS Swansea University 2019-05-14T10:33:42.2669523 2019-05-14T10:32:44.9409362 Faculty of Science and Engineering School of Aerospace, Civil, Electrical, General and Mechanical Engineering - Sport and Exercise Sciences Benjamin J Gray 1 Richard Bracken 0000-0002-6986-6449 2 Daniel Turner 3 Kerry Morgan 4 Michael Thomas 5 Sally P Williams 6 Meurig Williams 7 Sam Rice 8 Jeffrey W Stephens 9
title Different type 2 diabetes risk assessments predict dissimilar numbers at ‘high risk’: a retrospective analysis of diabetes risk-assessment tools
spellingShingle Different type 2 diabetes risk assessments predict dissimilar numbers at ‘high risk’: a retrospective analysis of diabetes risk-assessment tools
Richard Bracken
title_short Different type 2 diabetes risk assessments predict dissimilar numbers at ‘high risk’: a retrospective analysis of diabetes risk-assessment tools
title_full Different type 2 diabetes risk assessments predict dissimilar numbers at ‘high risk’: a retrospective analysis of diabetes risk-assessment tools
title_fullStr Different type 2 diabetes risk assessments predict dissimilar numbers at ‘high risk’: a retrospective analysis of diabetes risk-assessment tools
title_full_unstemmed Different type 2 diabetes risk assessments predict dissimilar numbers at ‘high risk’: a retrospective analysis of diabetes risk-assessment tools
title_sort Different type 2 diabetes risk assessments predict dissimilar numbers at ‘high risk’: a retrospective analysis of diabetes risk-assessment tools
author_id_str_mv f5da81cd18adfdedb2ccb845bddc12f7
author_id_fullname_str_mv f5da81cd18adfdedb2ccb845bddc12f7_***_Richard Bracken
author Richard Bracken
author2 Benjamin J Gray
Richard Bracken
Daniel Turner
Kerry Morgan
Michael Thomas
Sally P Williams
Meurig Williams
Sam Rice
Jeffrey W Stephens
format Journal article
container_title British Journal of General Practice
container_volume 65
container_issue 641
container_start_page e852
publishDate 2015
institution Swansea University
issn 0960-1643
1478-5242
doi_str_mv 10.3399/bjgp15X687661
college_str Faculty of Science and Engineering
hierarchytype
hierarchy_top_id facultyofscienceandengineering
hierarchy_top_title Faculty of Science and Engineering
hierarchy_parent_id facultyofscienceandengineering
hierarchy_parent_title Faculty of Science and Engineering
department_str School of Aerospace, Civil, Electrical, General and Mechanical Engineering - Sport and Exercise Sciences{{{_:::_}}}Faculty of Science and Engineering{{{_:::_}}}School of Aerospace, Civil, Electrical, General and Mechanical Engineering - Sport and Exercise Sciences
document_store_str 0
active_str 0
description 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.
published_date 2015-12-31T08:33:24Z
_version_ 1850837727738593280
score 11.08895

Similar Items