↓ Skip to main content

Validation of the UKPDS 82 risk equations within the Cardiff Diabetes Model

Overview of attention for article published in Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 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
Validation of the UKPDS 82 risk equations within the Cardiff Diabetes Model
Published in
Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12962-015-0038-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Philip McEwan, Thomas Ward, Hayley Bennett, Klas Bergenheim

Abstract

For end-users of diabetes models that include UKPDS 82 risk equations, an important question is how well these new equations perform. Consequently, the principal objective of this study was to validate the UKPDS 82 risk equations, embedded within an established type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) model, the Cardiff Diabetes Model, to contemporary T2DM outcomes studies. A total of 100 validation endpoints were simulated across treatment arms of twelve pivotal T2DM outcomes studies, simulation cohorts representing each validation study's cohort profile were generated and intensive and conventional treatment arms were defined in the Cardiff Diabetes Model. Overall the validation coefficient of determination was similar between both sets of risk equations: UKPDS 68, R(2) = 0.851; UKPDS 82, R(2) = 0.870. Results stratified by internal and external validation studies produced MAPE of 43.77 and 37.82%, respectively, when using UKPDS 82, and MAPE of 40.49 and 53.92%, respectively when using UKPDS 68. Areas of lack of fit, as measured by MAPE were inconsistent between sets of equations with ACCORD demonstrating a noteworthy lack of fit with UKPPDS 68 (MAPE = 170.88%) and the ADDITION study for UKPDS 82 (MAPE = 89.90%). This study has demonstrated that the UKPDS 82 equations exhibit similar levels of external validity to the UKPDS 68 equations with the additional benefit of enabling more diabetes related endpoints to be modeled.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 43 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 20%
Researcher 9 20%
Student > Postgraduate 7 16%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 6 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 43%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 5%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 8 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 August 2015.
All research outputs
#18,420,033
of 22,818,766 outputs
Outputs from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
#353
of 423 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,974
of 264,230 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
#2
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,818,766 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 423 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,230 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.