BACKGROUND: Around 1% of the UK population has diabetes that is either undiagnosed or unrecorded on practice disease registers. AIM: To estimate the number of people in UK primary care databases with biochemical evidence of undiagnosed diabetes. To develop simple practice-based search techniques to support early recognition of diabetes. DESIGN OF STUDY: Cross-sectional survey of 3 630 296 electronic records. SETTING: Four hundred and eighty UK practices contributing to the QRESEARCH database. METHOD: Electronic searches to identify people with no diabetes diagnosis in one of two categories (A and B), using the most recently recorded blood glucose measurement: random blood glucose level >or=11.1 mmol/l or fasting blood glucose level >or=7.0 mmol/l (A); either a random or a fasting blood glucose level >or=7.0 mmol/l (B). An additional outcome measure was the proportion of the population with at least one blood glucose measurement in the record. RESULTS: The number (percentage) identified in category A was 3758 (0.10% of the total population); the number in category B was 32 785 (0.90%). Projected to a practice of 7000 patients, around eight patients have biochemical evidence of undiagnosed diabetes, and 68 have results suggesting the need for further follow-up. One-third of people aged over 40 years without diabetes have a blood glucose measurement in the past 2 years in their record. CONCLUSION: People with possible undiagnosed diabetes are readily identifiable in UK primary care databases through electronic searches using blood glucose data. People with borderline levels, who may benefit from interventions to reduce their risk of progression to diabetes, can also be identified using practice-based software.
BACKGROUND: Around 1% of the UK population has diabetes that is either undiagnosed or unrecorded on practice disease registers. AIM: To estimate the number of people in UK primary care databases with biochemical evidence of undiagnosed diabetes. To develop simple practice-based search techniques to support early recognition of diabetes. DESIGN OF STUDY: Cross-sectional survey of 3 630 296 electronic records. SETTING: Four hundred and eighty UK practices contributing to the QRESEARCH database. METHOD: Electronic searches to identify people with no diabetes diagnosis in one of two categories (A and B), using the most recently recorded blood glucose measurement: random blood glucose level >or=11.1 mmol/l or fasting blood glucose level >or=7.0 mmol/l (A); either a random or a fasting blood glucose level >or=7.0 mmol/l (B). An additional outcome measure was the proportion of the population with at least one blood glucose measurement in the record. RESULTS: The number (percentage) identified in category A was 3758 (0.10% of the total population); the number in category B was 32 785 (0.90%). Projected to a practice of 7000 patients, around eight patients have biochemical evidence of undiagnosed diabetes, and 68 have results suggesting the need for further follow-up. One-third of people aged over 40 years without diabetes have a blood glucose measurement in the past 2 years in their record. CONCLUSION:People with possible undiagnosed diabetes are readily identifiable in UK primary care databases through electronic searches using blood glucose data. People with borderline levels, who may benefit from interventions to reduce their risk of progression to diabetes, can also be identified using practice-based software.
Authors: Jaana Lindström; Pirjo Ilanne-Parikka; Markku Peltonen; Sirkka Aunola; Johan G Eriksson; Katri Hemiö; Helena Hämäläinen; Pirjo Härkönen; Sirkka Keinänen-Kiukaanniemi; Mauri Laakso; Anne Louheranta; Marjo Mannelin; Merja Paturi; Jouko Sundvall; Timo T Valle; Matti Uusitupa; Jaakko Tuomilehto Journal: Lancet Date: 2006-11-11 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: William C Knowler; Elizabeth Barrett-Connor; Sarah E Fowler; Richard F Hamman; John M Lachin; Elizabeth A Walker; David M Nathan Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-02-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Erwin P Klein Woolthuis; Wim J C de Grauw; Willem Hem van Gerwen; Henk J M van den Hoogen; Eloy H van de Lisdonk; Job F M Metsemakers; Chris van Weel Journal: Fam Pract Date: 2007-05-16 Impact factor: 2.267
Authors: Tim A Holt; Margaret Thorogood; Frances Griffiths; Stephen Munday; Tim Friede; David Stables Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: L Govan; O Wu; A Briggs; H M Colhoun; J A McKnight; A D Morris; D W M Pearson; J R Petrie; N Sattar; S H Wild; R S Lindsay Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2011-05-24 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Susan E Spratt; Katherine Pereira; Bradi B Granger; Bryan C Batch; Matthew Phelan; Michael Pencina; Marie Lynn Miranda; Ebony Boulware; Joseph E Lucas; Charlotte L Nelson; Benjamin Neely; Benjamin A Goldstein; Pamela Barth; Rachel L Richesson; Isaretta L Riley; Leonor Corsino; Eugenia R McPeek Hinz; Shelley Rusincovitch; Jennifer Green; Anna Beth Barton; Carly Kelley; Kristen Hyland; Monica Tang; Amanda Elliott; Ewa Ruel; Alexander Clark; Melanie Mabrey; Kay Lyn Morrissey; Jyothi Rao; Beatrice Hong; Marjorie Pierre-Louis; Katherine Kelly; Nicole Jelesoff Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2017-04-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Shang-Ming Zhou; Fabiola Fernandez-Gutierrez; Jonathan Kennedy; Roxanne Cooksey; Mark Atkinson; Spiros Denaxas; Stefan Siebert; William G Dixon; Terence W O'Neill; Ernest Choy; Cathie Sudlow; Sinead Brophy Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-05-02 Impact factor: 3.240