Different type 2 diabetes risk assessments predict dissimilar numbers at 'high risk': a retrospective analysis of diabetes risk-assessment tools

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. This study explored any differences between commonly used vali...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:British journal of general practice 2015-12, Vol.65 (641), p.e852-e860
Main Authors: Gray, Benjamin J, Bracken, Richard M, Turner, Daniel, Morgan, Kerry, Thomas, Michael, Williams, Sally P, Williams, Meurig, Rice, Sam, Stephens, Jeffrey W
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adult
Body Mass Index
Cross-Sectional Studies
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 - epidemiology
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 - etiology
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 - prevention & control
Female
Health Personnel
Humans
Male
Mass Screening
Metallurgy
Middle Aged
Obesity - complications
Obesity - epidemiology
Occupational Health
Prevalence
Public Health
Retrospective Studies
Risk Assessment
Risk Factors
Wales - epidemiology
Workplace
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary: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. This study explored any differences between commonly used validated risk-assessment tools for type 2 diabetes. Cross-sectional analysis of individuals who participated in a workplace-based risk assessment in Carmarthenshire, South Wales. 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. 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%). 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.
ISSN:0960-1643
1478-5242
DOI:10.3399/bjgp15X687661