↓ Skip to main content

Independent external validation and comparison of prevalent diabetes risk prediction models in a mixed-ancestry population of South Africa

Overview of attention for article published in Diabetology & Metabolic Syndrome, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Independent external validation and comparison of prevalent diabetes risk prediction models in a mixed-ancestry population of South Africa
Published in
Diabetology & Metabolic Syndrome, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13098-015-0039-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katya Masconi, Tandi E. Matsha, Rajiv T. Erasmus, Andre P. Kengne

Abstract

Guidelines increasingly encourage the use of multivariable risk models to predict the presence of prevalent undiagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus worldwide. However, no single model can perform well in all settings and available models must be tested before implementation in new populations. We assessed and compared the performance of five prevalent diabetes risk models in mixed-ancestry South Africans. Data from the Cape Town Bellville-South cohort were used for this study. Models were identified via recent systematic reviews. Discrimination was assessed and compared using C-statistic and non-parametric methods. Calibration was assessed via calibration plots, before and after recalibration through intercept adjustment. Seven hundred thirty-seven participants (27 % male), mean age, 52.2 years, were included, among whom 130 (17.6 %) had prevalent undiagnosed diabetes. The highest c-statistic for the five prediction models was recorded with the Kuwaiti model [C-statistic 0.68: 95 % confidence: 0.63-0.73] and the lowest with the Rotterdam model [0. 64 (0.59-0.69)]; with no significant statistical differences when the models were compared with each other (Cambridge, Omani and the simplified Finnish models). Calibration ranged from acceptable to good, however over- and underestimation was prevalent. The Rotterdam and the Finnish models showed significant improvement following intercept adjustment. The wide range of performances of different models in our sample highlights the challenges of selecting an appropriate model for prevalent diabetes risk prediction in different settings.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 1 3%
Unknown 33 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 15%
Student > Postgraduate 4 12%
Researcher 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Student > Master 3 9%
Other 8 24%
Unknown 8 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 41%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 3%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 10 29%