Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2012 Sep 18:345:e5900.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.e5900.

Prediction models for risk of developing type 2 diabetes: systematic literature search and independent external validation study

Ali Abbasi  1 , 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
Affiliations

Prediction models for risk of developing type 2 diabetes: systematic literature search and independent external validation study

Ali Abbasi et al. BMJ. .

Abstract

Objective: To identify existing prediction models for the risk of development of type 2 diabetes and to externally validate them in a large independent cohort.

Data sources: Systematic search of English, German, and Dutch literature in PubMed until February 2011 to identify prediction models for diabetes.

Design: Performance of the models was assessed in terms of discrimination (C statistic) and calibration (calibration plots and Hosmer-Lemeshow test).The validation study was a prospective cohort study, with a case cohort study in a random subcohort.

Setting: Models were applied to the Dutch cohort of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition cohort study (EPIC-NL).

Participants: 38,379 people aged 20-70 with no diabetes at baseline, 2506 of whom made up the random subcohort.

Outcome measure: Incident type 2 diabetes.

Results: The review identified 16 studies containing 25 prediction models. We considered 12 models as basic because they were based on variables that can be assessed non-invasively and 13 models as extended because they additionally included conventional biomarkers such as glucose concentration. During a median follow-up of 10.2 years there were 924 cases in the full EPIC-NL cohort and 79 in the random subcohort. The C statistic for the basic models ranged from 0.74 (95% confidence interval 0.73 to 0.75) to 0.84 (0.82 to 0.85) for risk at 7.5 years. For prediction models including biomarkers the C statistic ranged from 0.81 (0.80 to 0.83) to 0.93 (0.92 to 0.94). Most prediction models overestimated the observed risk of diabetes, particularly at higher observed risks. After adjustment for differences in incidence of diabetes, calibration improved considerably.

Conclusions: Most basic prediction models can identify people at high risk of developing diabetes in a time frame of five to 10 years. Models including biomarkers classified cases slightly better than basic ones. Most models overestimated the actual risk of diabetes. Existing prediction models therefore perform well to identify those at high risk, but cannot sufficiently quantify actual risk of future diabetes.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Figures

None
Fig 1 Overview of systematic literature search of studies that derived prediction models for risk of type 2 diabetes
None
Fig 2 Calibration plots for recalibrated basic models risk of diabetes at 7.5 years depicting predicted risk against observed risk of developing type 2 diabetes in validation dataset. Dashed line (45° line) from zero denotes ideal calibration line (slope=1, intercept=0) and other lines are smooth calibration curve for each model
None
Fig 3 Calibration plots for recalibrated extended models risk of diabetes at 7.5 years depicting predicted risk against observed risk of developing type 2 diabetes in validation dataset. Dashed line (45° line) from zero denotes ideal calibration line (slope=1, intercept=0) and other lines are smooth calibration curve for each model
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Wild S, Roglic G, Green A, Sicree R, King H. Global prevalence of diabetes: estimates for the year 2000 and projections for 2030. Diabetes Care 2004;27:1047-53. - PubMed
    1. Knowler WC, Barrett-Connor E, Fowler SE, Hamman RF, Lachin JM, Walker EA, et al. Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin. N Engl J Med 2002;346:393-403. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Group DPPR, Fowler SE, Hamman RF, Christophi CA, Hoffman HJ, Brenneman AT, et al. 10-year follow-up of diabetes incidence and weight loss in the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study. Lancet 2009;374:1677-86. - PMC - PubMed
    1. American Diabetes Association. Standards of medical care in diabetes—2011. Diabetes Care 2011;34(suppl 1):S11-61. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Paulweber B, Valensi P, Lindstrom J, Lalic NM, Greaves CJ, McKee M, et al. A European evidence-based guideline for the prevention of type 2 diabetes. Horm Metab Res 2010;42(suppl 1):S3-36. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms