IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0135702.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Response Rates and Diagnostic Yield of Screening for Type 2 Diabetes and Those at High Risk of Diabetes

Author

Listed:
  • Kamlesh Khunti
  • Hamidreza Mani
  • Felix Achana
  • Nicola Cooper
  • Laura J Gray
  • Melanie J Davies

Abstract

Background: Screening for type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and individuals at risk of diabetes has been advocated, yet information on the response rate and diagnostic yield of different screening strategies are lacking. Methods: Studies (from 1998 to March/2015) were identified through Medline, Embase and the Cochrane library and included if they used oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) and WHO-1998 diagnostic criteria for screening in a community setting. Studies were one-step strategy if participants were invited directly for OGTT and two, three/four step if participants were screened at one or more levels prior to invitation to OGTT. The response rate and diagnostic yield were pooled using Bayesian random-effect meta-analyses. Findings: 47 studies (422754 participants); 29 one-step, 11 two-step and seven three/four-step were identified. Pooled response rate (95% Credible Interval) for invitation to OGTT was 65.5% (53.7, 75.6), 63.1% (44.0, 76.8), and 85.4% (76.4, 93.3) in one, two and three/four-step studies respectively. T2DM yield was 6.6% (5.3, 7.8), 13.1% (4.3, 30.9) and 27.9% (8.6, 66.3) for one, two and three/four-step strategies respectively. The number needed to invite to the OGTT to detect one case of T2DM was 15, 7.6 and 3.6 in one, two, and three/four-step strategies. In two step strategies, there was no difference between the response or yield rates whether the first step was blood test or risk-score. There was evidence of substantial heterogeneity in rates across study populations but this was not explained by the method of invitation, study location (rural versus urban) and developmental index of the country in which the study was performed. Conclusions: Irrespective of the invitation method, developmental status of the countries and or rural/urban location, using a multi-step strategy increases the initial response rate to the invitation to screening for diabetes and reduces the number needed to have the final diagnostic test (OGTT in this study) for a definite diagnosis.

Suggested Citation

  • Kamlesh Khunti & Hamidreza Mani & Felix Achana & Nicola Cooper & Laura J Gray & Melanie J Davies, 2015. "Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Response Rates and Diagnostic Yield of Screening for Type 2 Diabetes and Those at High Risk of Diabetes," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(9), pages 1-19, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0135702
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0135702
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0135702
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0135702&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0135702?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hossein Kamalzadeh & Vishal Ahuja & Michael Hahsler & Michael E. Bowen, 2021. "An Analytics‐Driven Approach for Optimal Individualized Diabetes Screening," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 30(9), pages 3161-3191, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0135702. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.