{"title":"普通人群2型糖尿病风险预测模型:一项观察性研究的系统综述","authors":"Samaneh Asgari, Davood Khalili, Farhad Hosseinpanah, Farzad Hadaegh","doi":"10.5812/ijem.109206","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to provide an overview of prediction models of undiagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus (U-T2DM) or the incident T2DM (I-T2DM) using the transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD) checklist and the prediction model risk of the bias assessment tool (PROBAST).</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>Both PUBMED and EMBASE databases were searched to guarantee adequate and efficient coverage.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>Articles published between December 2011 and October 2019 were considered.</p><p><strong>Data extraction: </strong>For each article, information on model development requirements, discrimination measures, calibration, overall performance, clinical usefulness, overfitting, and risk of bias (ROB) was reported.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The median (interquartile range; IQR) number of the 46 study populations for model development was 5711 (1971 - 27426) and 2457 (2060 - 6995) individuals for I-T2DM and U-T2DM, respectively. The most common reported predictors were age and body mass index, and only the Qrisk-2017 study included social factors (e.g., Townsend score). Univariable analysis was reported in 46% of the studies, and the variable selection procedure was not clear in 17.4% of them. Moreover, internal and external validation was reported in 43% the studies, while over 63% of them reported calibration. The median (IQR) of AUC for I-T2DM models was 0.78 (0.74 - 0.82); the corresponding value for studies derived before October 2011 was 0.80 (0.77 - 0.83). The highest discrimination index was reported for Qrisk-2017 with C-statistics of 0.89 for women and 0.87 for men. Low ROB for I-T2DM and U-T2DM was assessed at 18% and 41%, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Among prediction models, an intermediate to poor quality was reassessed in several aspects of model development and validation. Generally, despite its new risk factors or new methodological aspects, the newly developed model did not increase our capability in screening/predicting T2DM, mainly in the analysis part. It was due to the lack of external validation of the prediction models.</p>","PeriodicalId":13969,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/65/3b/ijem-19-3-109206.PMC8453657.pdf","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prediction Models for Type 2 Diabetes Risk in the General Population: A Systematic Review of Observational Studies.\",\"authors\":\"Samaneh Asgari, Davood Khalili, Farhad Hosseinpanah, Farzad Hadaegh\",\"doi\":\"10.5812/ijem.109206\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to provide an overview of prediction models of undiagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus (U-T2DM) or the incident T2DM (I-T2DM) using the transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD) checklist and the prediction model risk of the bias assessment tool (PROBAST).</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>Both PUBMED and EMBASE databases were searched to guarantee adequate and efficient coverage.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>Articles published between December 2011 and October 2019 were considered.</p><p><strong>Data extraction: </strong>For each article, information on model development requirements, discrimination measures, calibration, overall performance, clinical usefulness, overfitting, and risk of bias (ROB) was reported.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The median (interquartile range; IQR) number of the 46 study populations for model development was 5711 (1971 - 27426) and 2457 (2060 - 6995) individuals for I-T2DM and U-T2DM, respectively. The most common reported predictors were age and body mass index, and only the Qrisk-2017 study included social factors (e.g., Townsend score). Univariable analysis was reported in 46% of the studies, and the variable selection procedure was not clear in 17.4% of them. Moreover, internal and external validation was reported in 43% the studies, while over 63% of them reported calibration. The median (IQR) of AUC for I-T2DM models was 0.78 (0.74 - 0.82); the corresponding value for studies derived before October 2011 was 0.80 (0.77 - 0.83). The highest discrimination index was reported for Qrisk-2017 with C-statistics of 0.89 for women and 0.87 for men. Low ROB for I-T2DM and U-T2DM was assessed at 18% and 41%, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Among prediction models, an intermediate to poor quality was reassessed in several aspects of model development and validation. Generally, despite its new risk factors or new methodological aspects, the newly developed model did not increase our capability in screening/predicting T2DM, mainly in the analysis part. It was due to the lack of external validation of the prediction models.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13969,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-03-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/65/3b/ijem-19-3-109206.PMC8453657.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5812/ijem.109206\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/7/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5812/ijem.109206","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/7/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
Prediction Models for Type 2 Diabetes Risk in the General Population: A Systematic Review of Observational Studies.
Objectives: This study aimed to provide an overview of prediction models of undiagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus (U-T2DM) or the incident T2DM (I-T2DM) using the transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD) checklist and the prediction model risk of the bias assessment tool (PROBAST).
Data sources: Both PUBMED and EMBASE databases were searched to guarantee adequate and efficient coverage.
Study selection: Articles published between December 2011 and October 2019 were considered.
Data extraction: For each article, information on model development requirements, discrimination measures, calibration, overall performance, clinical usefulness, overfitting, and risk of bias (ROB) was reported.
Results: The median (interquartile range; IQR) number of the 46 study populations for model development was 5711 (1971 - 27426) and 2457 (2060 - 6995) individuals for I-T2DM and U-T2DM, respectively. The most common reported predictors were age and body mass index, and only the Qrisk-2017 study included social factors (e.g., Townsend score). Univariable analysis was reported in 46% of the studies, and the variable selection procedure was not clear in 17.4% of them. Moreover, internal and external validation was reported in 43% the studies, while over 63% of them reported calibration. The median (IQR) of AUC for I-T2DM models was 0.78 (0.74 - 0.82); the corresponding value for studies derived before October 2011 was 0.80 (0.77 - 0.83). The highest discrimination index was reported for Qrisk-2017 with C-statistics of 0.89 for women and 0.87 for men. Low ROB for I-T2DM and U-T2DM was assessed at 18% and 41%, respectively.
Conclusions: Among prediction models, an intermediate to poor quality was reassessed in several aspects of model development and validation. Generally, despite its new risk factors or new methodological aspects, the newly developed model did not increase our capability in screening/predicting T2DM, mainly in the analysis part. It was due to the lack of external validation of the prediction models.
期刊介绍:
The aim of the International Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism (IJEM) is to increase knowledge, stimulate research in the field of endocrinology, and promote better management of patients with endocrinological disorders. To achieve this goal, the journal publishes original research papers on human, animal and cell culture studies relevant to endocrinology.