Finnish diabetes risk score (findrisc) for type 2 diabetes screening compared with the oral glucose tolerance test: A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy

IF 7.4 3区医学 Q1 ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM

Diabetes research and clinical practice Pub Date : 2025-09-12 DOI:10.1016/j.diabres.2025.112480

Jorge Acosta-Reyes , Diana Patricia Rodríguez Garrido , Tania Acosta Vergara , Pablo Aschner , Cristina Alejandra Fraga , Aitana Vazquez-Fernandez , Jaakko Tuomilehto , Rafael Gabriel

{"title":"Finnish diabetes risk score (findrisc) for type 2 diabetes screening compared with the oral glucose tolerance test: A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy","authors":"Jorge Acosta-Reyes , Diana Patricia Rodríguez Garrido , Tania Acosta Vergara , Pablo Aschner , Cristina Alejandra Fraga , Aitana Vazquez-Fernandez , Jaakko Tuomilehto , Rafael Gabriel","doi":"10.1016/j.diabres.2025.112480","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Aims</h3><div>to determine the accuracy of the FINDRISC score compared with the oral glucose tolerance test for the detection of type 2 diabetes (T2D).</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This systematic review and meta-analysis involved electronic search in: Embase, Scopus, Medline, WoS, and Cochrane, from inception to November 2024. QUADAS-2 was employed to assess the risk of bias, and the certainty of evidence with the GRADE approach. A bivariate hierarchical random effects model was performed and the sensitivity, specificity, and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) along with the summary ROC curve, were calculated.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>25 cross-sectional studies and 7 cohort studies were included. The individual FINDRISC cut-off between 9 and 15 points was analysed. The AUC ranged between 0.694 and 0.755, sensitivity between 53.1% (95% CI 38.9–66.8) and 84.7% (95% CI 72.7–92.0), while the false positive rate (FPR) ranged from 21.8% (95% CI 12.9–34.3) to 54.8% (95% CI 38.0–70.5).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The FINDRISC scores of 9 and 10 points show the best effectiveness for screening T2D, with moderate and low quality of evidence respectively. Although the cut-off of 12 points has lower sensitivity, it significantly reduces the FPR and increase the specificity with moderate quality of evidence.</div></div><div><h3>Financing</h3><div>Private institutional own resources.</div></div><div><h3>Registration number</h3><div>PROSPERO (CRD42020189768).</div></div>","PeriodicalId":11249,"journal":{"name":"Diabetes research and clinical practice","volume":"229 ","pages":"Article 112480"},"PeriodicalIF":7.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diabetes research and clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168822725004942","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims

to determine the accuracy of the FINDRISC score compared with the oral glucose tolerance test for the detection of type 2 diabetes (T2D).

Methods

This systematic review and meta-analysis involved electronic search in: Embase, Scopus, Medline, WoS, and Cochrane, from inception to November 2024. QUADAS-2 was employed to assess the risk of bias, and the certainty of evidence with the GRADE approach. A bivariate hierarchical random effects model was performed and the sensitivity, specificity, and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) along with the summary ROC curve, were calculated.

Results

25 cross-sectional studies and 7 cohort studies were included. The individual FINDRISC cut-off between 9 and 15 points was analysed. The AUC ranged between 0.694 and 0.755, sensitivity between 53.1% (95% CI 38.9–66.8) and 84.7% (95% CI 72.7–92.0), while the false positive rate (FPR) ranged from 21.8% (95% CI 12.9–34.3) to 54.8% (95% CI 38.0–70.5).

Conclusion

The FINDRISC scores of 9 and 10 points show the best effectiveness for screening T2D, with moderate and low quality of evidence respectively. Although the cut-off of 12 points has lower sensitivity, it significantly reduces the FPR and increase the specificity with moderate quality of evidence.

Financing

Private institutional own resources.

Registration number

PROSPERO (CRD42020189768).

查看原文本刊更多论文

芬兰糖尿病风险评分（findrisc）用于2型糖尿病筛查与口服葡萄糖耐量试验的比较：诊断试验准确性的系统回顾和荟萃分析

目的比较FINDRISC评分与口服糖耐量试验检测2型糖尿病（T2D）的准确性。方法采用Embase、Scopus、Medline、WoS、Cochrane等电子检索系统进行系统综述和荟萃分析，检索时间自成立至2024年11月。采用QUADAS-2评估偏倚风险，并采用GRADE方法评估证据的确定性。建立双变量分层随机效应模型，计算灵敏度、特异性及其95%置信区间（CI）和汇总ROC曲线。结果纳入25项横断面研究和7项队列研究。对FINDRISC在9到15点之间的分界点进行了分析。AUC范围为0.694 ~ 0.755，敏感性范围为53.1% (95% CI 38.9 ~ 66.8) ~ 84.7% (95% CI 72.7 ~ 92.0)，假阳性率（FPR）范围为21.8% (95% CI 12.9 ~ 34.3) ~ 54.8% （95% CI 38.0 ~ 70.5）。结论FINDRISC评分为9分和10分时筛查T2D的效果最佳，证据质量分别为中等和低。虽然12点的截止值敏感性较低，但显著降低了FPR，增加了特异性，证据质量中等。私人机构自有资源。注册号prospero （CRD42020189768）。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Diabetes research and clinical practice 医学-内分泌学与代谢

CiteScore

10.30

自引率

3.90%

发文量

862

审稿时长

32 days

期刊介绍： Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice is an international journal for health-care providers and clinically oriented researchers that publishes high-quality original research articles and expert reviews in diabetes and related areas. The role of the journal is to provide a venue for dissemination of knowledge and discussion of topics related to diabetes clinical research and patient care. Topics of focus include translational science, genetics, immunology, nutrition, psychosocial research, epidemiology, prevention, socio-economic research, complications, new treatments, technologies and therapy.