Grace M V Ku1, Guy Kegels. 1. Department of Public Health, Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp, Belgium. Electronic address: gracemariekumd@yahoo.com.
Abstract
AIM: The performance of the Finnish Diabetes Risk Score (FINDRISC) and 2 modifications in community screening for undiagnosed type 2 diabetes (UDD) in the Philippines was evaluated. METHODS: Active community-based screening for diabetes was conducted where FINDRISC assessment was done. Modified (modFINDRISC) and simplified (simpFINDRISC) versions were rendered based on Asian standards, study results, and local context. Diabetes was diagnosed through 2 separate blood glucose tests. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC-AUC) and statistics for diagnostic tests for FINDRISC and the modifications were analyzed. RESULTS: Complete data was collected from 1752 people aged 20-92; 8.6% tested positive for diabetes. ROC-AUC for UDD were 0.738 (FINDRISC), 0.743 (modFINDRISC) and 0.752 (simpFINDRISC). The differences between the FINDRISC and the modifications were not statistically significant (p=0.172). CONCLUSIONS: The performance of all 3 risk score calculators in the screening for UDD in the Philippines was good and may be useful in populations having similar characteristics. Considering the setting and resource constraints, the simpFINDRISC is preferred.
AIM: The performance of the Finnish Diabetes Risk Score (FINDRISC) and 2 modifications in community screening for undiagnosed type 2 diabetes (UDD) in the Philippines was evaluated. METHODS: Active community-based screening for diabetes was conducted where FINDRISC assessment was done. Modified (modFINDRISC) and simplified (simpFINDRISC) versions were rendered based on Asian standards, study results, and local context. Diabetes was diagnosed through 2 separate blood glucose tests. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC-AUC) and statistics for diagnostic tests for FINDRISC and the modifications were analyzed. RESULTS: Complete data was collected from 1752 people aged 20-92; 8.6% tested positive for diabetes. ROC-AUC for UDD were 0.738 (FINDRISC), 0.743 (modFINDRISC) and 0.752 (simpFINDRISC). The differences between the FINDRISC and the modifications were not statistically significant (p=0.172). CONCLUSIONS: The performance of all 3 risk score calculators in the screening for UDD in the Philippines was good and may be useful in populations having similar characteristics. Considering the setting and resource constraints, the simpFINDRISC is preferred.
Authors: Gertraud Maskarinec; Simone Jacobs; Yukiko Morimoto; Marci Chock; Andrew Grandinetti; Laurence N Kolonel Journal: Asia Pac J Public Health Date: 2014-08-27 Impact factor: 1.399
Authors: Katya L Masconi; Tandi E Matsha; Justin B Echouffo-Tcheugui; Rajiv T Erasmus; Andre P Kengne Journal: EPMA J Date: 2015-03-11 Impact factor: 6.543
Authors: Anne Jølle; Kristian Midthjell; Jostein Holmen; Jaakko Tuomilehto; Sven M Carlsen; Jonathan Shaw; Bjørn O Åsvold Journal: BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care Date: 2016-06-22
Authors: Miguel Ángel Salinero-Fort; Carmen de Burgos-Lunar; José Mostaza Prieto; Carlos Lahoz Rallo; Juan Carlos Abánades-Herranz; Paloma Gómez-Campelo; Fernando Laguna Cuesta; Eva Estirado De Cabo; Francisca García Iglesias; Teresa González Alegre; Belén Fernández Puntero; Luis Montesano Sánchez; David Vicent López; Víctor Cornejo Del Río; Pedro J Fernández García; Concesa Sabín Rodríguez; Silvia López López; Pedro Patrón Barandío Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2015-07-28 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: M A Salinero-Fort; C Burgos-Lunar; C Lahoz; J M Mostaza; J C Abánades-Herranz; F Laguna-Cuesta; E Estirado-de Cabo; F García-Iglesias; T González-Alegre; B Fernández-Puntero; L Montesano-Sánchez; D Vicent-López; V Cornejo-Del Río; P J Fernández-García; V Sánchez-Arroyo; C Sabín-Rodríguez; S López-López; P Patrón-Barandio; P Gómez-Campelo Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-07-21 Impact factor: 3.240