BACKGROUND: The objectives of this study were to describe in detail the ascertainment and verification of prevalent and incident diabetes in the Dutch contributor to the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC-NL cohort) and to examine to what extent ascertained diabetes agreed with general practitioner (GP) and pharmacy records. METHODS: In total, 40,011 adults, aged 21 to 70 years at baseline, were included. Diabetes was ascertained via self-report, linkage to registers of hospital discharge diagnoses (HDD) and a urinary glucose strip test. Ascertained diabetes cases were verified against GP or pharmacist information using mailed questionnaires. RESULTS: At baseline, 795 (2.0%) diabetes cases were ascertained, and 1494 (3.7%) during a mean follow-up of ten years. The majority was ascertained via self-report only (56.7%), or self-report in combination with HDD (18.0%). After verification of ascertained diabetes cases, 1532 (66.9%) [corrected] were defined as having diabetes , 495 (21.6%) as non-diabetic individuals, and 262 (11.5%) as uncertain. Of the 1538 cases ascertained by self-report, 1350 (positive predictive value: 87.8%) were confirmed by GP or pharmacist. Cases ascertained via self-report in combination with HDD were most often confirmed (334 (positive predictive value: 96.0%)). CONCLUSIONS: Two out of three ascertained diabetes cases were confirmed to have been diagnosed with diabetes by their GP or pharmacist. Diabetes cases ascertained via self-report in combination with HDD had the highest confirmation.
BACKGROUND: The objectives of this study were to describe in detail the ascertainment and verification of prevalent and incident diabetes in the Dutch contributor to the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC-NL cohort) and to examine to what extent ascertained diabetes agreed with general practitioner (GP) and pharmacy records. METHODS: In total, 40,011 adults, aged 21 to 70 years at baseline, were included. Diabetes was ascertained via self-report, linkage to registers of hospital discharge diagnoses (HDD) and a urinary glucose strip test. Ascertained diabetes cases were verified against GP or pharmacist information using mailed questionnaires. RESULTS: At baseline, 795 (2.0%) diabetes cases were ascertained, and 1494 (3.7%) during a mean follow-up of ten years. The majority was ascertained via self-report only (56.7%), or self-report in combination with HDD (18.0%). After verification of ascertained diabetes cases, 1532 (66.9%) [corrected] were defined as having diabetes , 495 (21.6%) as non-diabetic individuals, and 262 (11.5%) as uncertain. Of the 1538 cases ascertained by self-report, 1350 (positive predictive value: 87.8%) were confirmed by GP or pharmacist. Cases ascertained via self-report in combination with HDD were most often confirmed (334 (positive predictive value: 96.0%)). CONCLUSIONS: Two out of three ascertained diabetes cases were confirmed to have been diagnosed with diabetes by their GP or pharmacist. Diabetes cases ascertained via self-report in combination with HDD had the highest confirmation.
Authors: Florianne Bauer; Joline W J Beulens; Daphne L van der A; Cisca Wijmenga; Diederick E Grobbee; Annemieke M W Spijkerman; Yvonne T van der Schouw; N Charlotte Onland-Moret Journal: Eur J Nutr Date: 2012-07-28 Impact factor: 5.614
Authors: S van Dieren; U Nöthlings; Y T van der Schouw; A M W Spijkerman; G E H M Rutten; D L van der A; D Sluik; C Weikert; H G Joost; H Boeing; J W J Beulens Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2010-10-20 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Ali Abbasi; Linda M Peelen; Eva Corpeleijn; Yvonne T van der Schouw; Ronald P Stolk; Annemieke M W Spijkerman; Daphne L van der A; Karel G M Moons; Gerjan Navis; Stephan J L Bakker; Joline W J Beulens Journal: BMJ Date: 2012-09-18
Authors: Annet F M van Abeelen; Sjoerd G Elias; Patrick M M Bossuyt; Diederick E Grobbee; Yvonne T van der Schouw; Tessa J Roseboom; Cuno S P M Uiterwaal Journal: Diabetes Date: 2012-05-29 Impact factor: 9.461
Authors: Cécile M Povel; Joline W Beulens; Yvonne T van der Schouw; Martijn E T Dollé; Annemieke M W Spijkerman; W M Monique Verschuren; Edith J M Feskens; Jolanda M A Boer Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2012-08-29 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Jana V van Vliet-Ostaptchouk; Timon W van Haeften; Gijs W D Landman; Erwin Reiling; Nanne Kleefstra; Henk J G Bilo; Olaf H Klungel; Anthonius de Boer; Cleo C van Diemen; Cisca Wijmenga; H Marike Boezen; Jacqueline M Dekker; Esther van 't Riet; Giel Nijpels; Laura M C Welschen; Hata Zavrelova; Elinda J Bruin; Clara C Elbers; Florianne Bauer; N Charlotte Onland-Moret; Yvonne T van der Schouw; Diederick E Grobbee; Annemieke M W Spijkerman; Daphne L van der A; Annemarie M Simonis-Bik; Elisabeth M W Eekhoff; Michaela Diamant; Mark H H Kramer; Dorret I Boomsma; Eco J de Geus; Gonneke Willemsen; P Eline Slagboom; Marten H Hofker; Leen M 't Hart Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-03-05 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Clara C Elbers; N Charlotte Onland-Moret; Marinus J C Eijkemans; Cisca Wijmenga; Diederick E Grobbee; Yvonne T van der Schouw Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2011-10-16 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: Anne M May; Ellen A Struijk; Heidi P Fransen; N Charlotte Onland-Moret; G Ardine de Wit; Jolanda M A Boer; Yvonne T van der Schouw; Jeljer Hoekstra; H Bas Bueno-de-Mesquita; Petra H M Peeters; Joline W J Beulens Journal: BMC Med Date: 2015-02-27 Impact factor: 8.775
Authors: Ali Abbasi; Stephan J L Bakker; Eva Corpeleijn; Daphne L van der A; Ron T Gansevoort; Rijk O B Gans; Linda M Peelen; Yvonne T van der Schouw; Ronald P Stolk; Gerjan Navis; Annemieke M W Spijkerman; Joline W J Beulens Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-12-17 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Sabine R Zwakenberg; Caren M Gundberg; Annemieke M W Spijkerman; Daphne L van der A; Yvonne T van der Schouw; Joline W J Beulens Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-09-29 Impact factor: 3.240