Finnish diabetes risk score (findrisc) for type 2 diabetes screening compared with the oral glucose tolerance test: A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy

to determine the accuracy of the FINDRISC score compared with the oral glucose tolerance test for the detection of type 2 diabetes (T2D). This systematic review and meta-analysis involved electronic search in: Embase, Scopus, Medline, WoS, and Cochrane, from inception to November 2024. QUADAS-2 was...

Celý popis

Uloženo v:

Podrobná bibliografie
Vydáno v:	Diabetes research and clinical practice Ročník 229; s. 112480
Hlavní autoři:	Acosta-Reyes, Jorge, Rodríguez Garrido, Diana Patricia, Acosta Vergara, Tania, Aschner, Pablo, Fraga, Cristina Alejandra, Vazquez-Fernandez, Aitana, Tuomilehto, Jaakko, Gabriel, Rafael
Médium:	Journal Article
Jazyk:	angličtina
Vydáno:	Ireland Elsevier B.V 01.11.2025
Témata:	Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 - blood Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 - diagnosis Endocrinology and Metabolism FINDRISC Glucose Tolerance Test Humans Mass Screening - methods Oral glucose tolerance test Sensitivity and Specificity Type 2 diabetes Type 2 diabetes Oral glucose tolerance test Sensitivity and Specificity FINDRISC
ISSN:	0168-8227, 1872-8227, 1872-8227
On-line přístup:	Získat plný text
Tagy:	Přidat tag Žádné tagy, Buďte první, kdo vytvoří štítek k tomuto záznamu!

Popis
Shrnutí:	to determine the accuracy of the FINDRISC score compared with the oral glucose tolerance test for the detection of type 2 diabetes (T2D). This systematic review and meta-analysis involved electronic search in: Embase, Scopus, Medline, WoS, and Cochrane, from inception to November 2024. QUADAS-2 was employed to assess the risk of bias, and the certainty of evidence with the GRADE approach. A bivariate hierarchical random effects model was performed and the sensitivity, specificity, and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) along with the summary ROC curve, were calculated. 25 cross-sectional studies and 7 cohort studies were included. The individual FINDRISC cut-off between 9 and 15 points was analysed. The AUC ranged between 0.694 and 0.755, sensitivity between 53.1% (95% CI 38.9–66.8) and 84.7% (95% CI 72.7–92.0), while the false positive rate (FPR) ranged from 21.8% (95% CI 12.9–34.3) to 54.8% (95% CI 38.0–70.5). The FINDRISC scores of 9 and 10 points show the best effectiveness for screening T2D, with moderate and low quality of evidence respectively. Although the cut-off of 12 points has lower sensitivity, it significantly reduces the FPR and increase the specificity with moderate quality of evidence. Private institutional own resources. PROSPERO (CRD42020189768).
Bibliografie:	ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23
ISSN:	0168-8227 1872-8227 1872-8227
DOI:	10.1016/j.diabres.2025.112480