Reconsidering the age thresholds for type II diabetes screening in the U.S
Open accessAbstract
Background Type 2 diabetes (diabetes) and its complications can sometimes be prevented, if identified and treated early. One fifth of diabetics in the U.S. remain undiagnosed. Commonly used screening guidelines are inconsistent. Purpose To examine the optimal age cut-point for opportunistic universal screening, compared to targeted screening, which is recommended by U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) and American Diabetes Association (ADA) guidelines. Methods Cross-sectional analysis of a nationally representative sample from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2007–2010. Number of people needed to screen (NNS) to obtain one positive test result was calculated for different guidelines. Sampling weights were applied to construct national estimates. The 2010 Medicare fee schedule was used for cost estimation. Analysis was conducted in January 2014. Results NNS, under universal screening, drops sharply at age 35 years, from 80 (30–34-year-olds) to 31 (35–39-year-olds). Opportunistic universal screening of eligible people aged ≥35 years would yield a NNS of 15, translating to $66 per positive test. Among people aged 35–44 years (who are not recommended for universal screening by ADA), most (71%) were overweight or obese and all had at least one other ADA risk factor. Only 34% of individuals aged ≥35 years met USPSTF criteria. Strictly enforcing USPSTF guidelines would have resulted in a majority (61%) of potential positive tests cases being missed (5,508,164 cases nationwide). Conclusions Opportunistic universal screening among individuals aged ≥35 years could greatly reduce the national prevalence of undiagnosed pre-diabetes or diabetes at relatively low cost.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 37 · Cited by 36
- Authors
- Chung, S., Azar, K. M. J., Baek, M., Lauderdale, D. S., & Palaniappan, L. P.
- Affiliations
- Palo Alto Medical Foundation (US)
- University of Chicago (US)
- Corresponding author
- Chung, Sukyung
- Venue
- American Journal of Preventive Medicine
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2014-10
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 375-381
- ISSN
- 0749-3797 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4171212
- OpenAlex
- W2028037491
- Semantic Scholar
- 2ce707aafb17092521d59f748be2a32f8830d49e
- Cited by
- 36
- References
- 37
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3
- FWCI
- 1.65
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- American Journal of Preventive Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (1R01DK081371-01A1)
- Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (K01 HS019815)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
- Keywords
- type 2 diabetes screening, targeted screening, prediabetes, undiagnosed diabetes, number needed to screen, screening guidelines, USPSTF recommendations, American Diabetes Association guidelines, screening costs, diabetes risk factors, obesity, overweight
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Age Factors, Aged, Cross-Sectional Studies, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Humans, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Nutrition Surveys, Obesity, Risk Factors, United States, Prevalence, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Overweight, Young Adult
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review