↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of surrogate measures of insulin sensitivity - correlation with gold standard is not enough

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 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
Evaluation of surrogate measures of insulin sensitivity - correlation with gold standard is not enough
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12874-018-0521-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna Rudvik, Marianne Månsson

Abstract

Impaired insulin sensitivity is a key abnormality underlying the development of type 2 diabetes. Measuring insulin sensitivity is therefore of importance in identifying individuals at risk of developing diabetes and for the evaluation of diabetes-focused interventions. A number of measures have been proposed for this purpose. Among these the hyperinsulinemic euglycemic clamp (HEC) is considered the gold standard. However, as the HEC is a costly, time consuming and invasive method requiring trained staff, there is a need for simpler so called surrogate measures. A frequently used approach to evaluate surrogate measures is through correlation with the HEC. We discuss limitations with this method. We suggest other aspects to take into consideration, such as repeatability, reproducibility, systematic biases and discrimination ability. In addition, we focus on three frequently used surrogate measures. We argue that they are one-to-one transformations of each other, and therefore question the benefits of further comparison between them. They give the same results in all rank-based methods, for instance Spearman correlations, Mann-Whitney tests and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. We suggest investigating further aspects than correlation alone when evaluating a surrogate measure of insulin sensitivity. We recommend choosing one of the three surrogate measures HOMA-IR, QUICKI and FIRI for analysis of a clinical study.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 12 26%
Student > Master 10 22%
Researcher 5 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Student > Postgraduate 2 4%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 11 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Computer Science 2 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 15 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 27 June 2018.
All research outputs
#5,829,518
of 23,092,602 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#831
of 2,035 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,173
of 329,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#30
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,092,602 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,035 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its peers.
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 329,072 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.