Journal article 788 views
Different type 2 diabetes risk assessments predict dissimilar numbers at ‘high risk’: a retrospective analysis of diabetes risk-assessment tools
Benjamin J Gray,
Richard Bracken 
,
Daniel Turner,
Kerry Morgan,
Michael Thomas,
Sally P Williams,
Meurig Williams,
Sam Rice,
Jeffrey W Stephens
,
Daniel Turner,
Kerry Morgan,
Michael Thomas,
Sally P Williams,
Meurig Williams,
Sam Rice,
Jeffrey W Stephens
British Journal of General Practice, Volume: 65, Issue: 641, Pages: e852 - e860
Swansea University Author:
Richard Bracken
Full text not available from this repository: check for access using links below.
DOI (Published version): 10.3399/bjgp15X687661
Abstract
Background 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.Aim This study explored any differences between comm...
| Published in: | British Journal of General Practice |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0960-1643 1478-5242 |
| Published: |
2015
|
| Online Access: |
Check full text
|
| URI: | https://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa50347 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| first_indexed |
2019-05-14T14:00:18Z |
|---|---|
| last_indexed |
2019-05-14T14:00:18Z |
| id |
cronfa50347 |
| recordtype |
SURis |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0"?><rfc1807><datestamp>2019-05-14T10:33:42.2669523</datestamp><bib-version>v2</bib-version><id>50347</id><entry>2019-05-14</entry><title>Different type 2 diabetes risk assessments predict dissimilar numbers at ‘high risk’: a retrospective analysis of diabetes risk-assessment tools</title><swanseaauthors><author><sid>f5da81cd18adfdedb2ccb845bddc12f7</sid><ORCID>0000-0002-6986-6449</ORCID><firstname>Richard</firstname><surname>Bracken</surname><name>Richard Bracken</name><active>true</active><ethesisStudent>false</ethesisStudent></author></swanseaauthors><date>2019-05-14</date><deptcode>STSC</deptcode><abstract>Background 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.Aim This study explored any differences between commonly used validated risk-assessment tools for type 2 diabetes.Design and setting Cross-sectional analysis of individuals who participated in a workplace-based risk assessment in Carmarthenshire, South Wales.Method 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.Results 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%).Conclusion 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.</abstract><type>Journal Article</type><journal>British Journal of General Practice</journal><volume>65</volume><journalNumber>641</journalNumber><paginationStart>e852</paginationStart><paginationEnd>e860</paginationEnd><publisher/><issnPrint>0960-1643</issnPrint><issnElectronic>1478-5242</issnElectronic><keywords/><publishedDay>31</publishedDay><publishedMonth>12</publishedMonth><publishedYear>2015</publishedYear><publishedDate>2015-12-31</publishedDate><doi>10.3399/bjgp15X687661</doi><url/><notes/><college>COLLEGE NANME</college><department>Sport and Exercise Sciences</department><CollegeCode>COLLEGE CODE</CollegeCode><DepartmentCode>STSC</DepartmentCode><institution>Swansea University</institution><apcterm/><lastEdited>2019-05-14T10:33:42.2669523</lastEdited><Created>2019-05-14T10:32:44.9409362</Created><path><level id="1">Faculty of Science and Engineering</level><level id="2">School of Aerospace, Civil, Electrical, General and Mechanical Engineering - Sport and Exercise Sciences</level></path><authors><author><firstname>Benjamin J</firstname><surname>Gray</surname><order>1</order></author><author><firstname>Richard</firstname><surname>Bracken</surname><orcid>0000-0002-6986-6449</orcid><order>2</order></author><author><firstname>Daniel</firstname><surname>Turner</surname><order>3</order></author><author><firstname>Kerry</firstname><surname>Morgan</surname><order>4</order></author><author><firstname>Michael</firstname><surname>Thomas</surname><order>5</order></author><author><firstname>Sally P</firstname><surname>Williams</surname><order>6</order></author><author><firstname>Meurig</firstname><surname>Williams</surname><order>7</order></author><author><firstname>Sam</firstname><surname>Rice</surname><order>8</order></author><author><firstname>Jeffrey W</firstname><surname>Stephens</surname><order>9</order></author></authors><documents/><OutputDurs/></rfc1807> |
| spelling |
2019-05-14T10:33:42.2669523 v2 50347 2019-05-14 Different type 2 diabetes risk assessments predict dissimilar numbers at ‘high risk’: a retrospective analysis of diabetes risk-assessment tools f5da81cd18adfdedb2ccb845bddc12f7 0000-0002-6986-6449 Richard Bracken Richard Bracken true false 2019-05-14 STSC Background 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.Aim This study explored any differences between commonly used validated risk-assessment tools for type 2 diabetes.Design and setting Cross-sectional analysis of individuals who participated in a workplace-based risk assessment in Carmarthenshire, South Wales.Method 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.Results 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%).Conclusion 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. Journal Article British Journal of General Practice 65 641 e852 e860 0960-1643 1478-5242 31 12 2015 2015-12-31 10.3399/bjgp15X687661 COLLEGE NANME Sport and Exercise Sciences COLLEGE CODE STSC Swansea University 2019-05-14T10:33:42.2669523 2019-05-14T10:32:44.9409362 Faculty of Science and Engineering School of Aerospace, Civil, Electrical, General and Mechanical Engineering - Sport and Exercise Sciences Benjamin J Gray 1 Richard Bracken 0000-0002-6986-6449 2 Daniel Turner 3 Kerry Morgan 4 Michael Thomas 5 Sally P Williams 6 Meurig Williams 7 Sam Rice 8 Jeffrey W Stephens 9 |
| title |
Different type 2 diabetes risk assessments predict dissimilar numbers at ‘high risk’: a retrospective analysis of diabetes risk-assessment tools |
| spellingShingle |
Different type 2 diabetes risk assessments predict dissimilar numbers at ‘high risk’: a retrospective analysis of diabetes risk-assessment tools Richard Bracken |
| title_short |
Different type 2 diabetes risk assessments predict dissimilar numbers at ‘high risk’: a retrospective analysis of diabetes risk-assessment tools |
| title_full |
Different type 2 diabetes risk assessments predict dissimilar numbers at ‘high risk’: a retrospective analysis of diabetes risk-assessment tools |
| title_fullStr |
Different type 2 diabetes risk assessments predict dissimilar numbers at ‘high risk’: a retrospective analysis of diabetes risk-assessment tools |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Different type 2 diabetes risk assessments predict dissimilar numbers at ‘high risk’: a retrospective analysis of diabetes risk-assessment tools |
| title_sort |
Different type 2 diabetes risk assessments predict dissimilar numbers at ‘high risk’: a retrospective analysis of diabetes risk-assessment tools |
| author_id_str_mv |
f5da81cd18adfdedb2ccb845bddc12f7 |
| author_id_fullname_str_mv |
f5da81cd18adfdedb2ccb845bddc12f7_***_Richard Bracken |
| author |
Richard Bracken |
| author2 |
Benjamin J Gray Richard Bracken Daniel Turner Kerry Morgan Michael Thomas Sally P Williams Meurig Williams Sam Rice Jeffrey W Stephens |
| format |
Journal article |
| container_title |
British Journal of General Practice |
| container_volume |
65 |
| container_issue |
641 |
| container_start_page |
e852 |
| publishDate |
2015 |
| institution |
Swansea University |
| issn |
0960-1643 1478-5242 |
| doi_str_mv |
10.3399/bjgp15X687661 |
| college_str |
Faculty of Science and Engineering |
| hierarchytype |
|
| hierarchy_top_id |
facultyofscienceandengineering |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Faculty of Science and Engineering |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
facultyofscienceandengineering |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Faculty of Science and Engineering |
| department_str |
School of Aerospace, Civil, Electrical, General and Mechanical Engineering - Sport and Exercise Sciences{{{_:::_}}}Faculty of Science and Engineering{{{_:::_}}}School of Aerospace, Civil, Electrical, General and Mechanical Engineering - Sport and Exercise Sciences |
| document_store_str |
0 |
| active_str |
0 |
| description |
Background 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.Aim This study explored any differences between commonly used validated risk-assessment tools for type 2 diabetes.Design and setting Cross-sectional analysis of individuals who participated in a workplace-based risk assessment in Carmarthenshire, South Wales.Method 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.Results 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%).Conclusion 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. |
| published_date |
2015-12-31T04:01:47Z |
| _version_ |
1763753178791149568 |
| score |
11.017062 |