Algorithms to define diabetes type using data from administrative databases: A systematic review of the evidence
Open accessAbstract
Aims To find the best-performing algorithms to distinguish type 1 and type 2 diabetes in administrative data. Methods Embase and MEDLINE databases were searched from January 2000 until January 2023. Papers evaluating the performance of algorithms to define type 1 and type 2 diabetes by reporting diagnostic metrics against a range of reference standards were selected. Study quality was evaluated using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies. Results Of the 24 studies meeting the eligibility criteria, 19 demonstrated a low risk of bias and low concerns about the applicability of the study population across all domains. Algorithms considering multiple diabetes diagnostic codes alone were sensitive and specific approaches to classify diabetes type (both metrics >92.1% for type 1 diabetes; >86.9% for type 2 diabetes). Among the top 10-performing algorithms to detect type 1 and type 2 diabetes, 70% and 100% featured multiple criteria, respectively. Information on insulin use was more sensitive and specific for detecting diabetes type than were criteria based on use of oral hypoglycaemic agents. Conclusions Algorithms based on multiple diabetes diagnostic codes and insulin use are the most accurate approaches to distinguish type 1 from type 2 diabetes using administrative data. Approaches with more than one criterion may also increase sensitivity in distinguishing diabetes type.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
A 2023 review of algorithms used to separate type 1 diabetes mellitus and type 2 diabetes mellitus showed that algorithms based on multiple diabetes mellitus diagnostic codes and insulin use are the most appropriate approaches.
“A 2023 review of algorithms used to separate T1DM and T2DM showed that algorithms based on multiple diabetes mellitus diagnostic codes and insulin use are the most appropriate approaches72.”
From The epidemiology of type 1 diabetes mellitus in older adults (2025) · cites this paper as [72]
Having more than one criterion available increased sensitivity for distinguishing diabetes mellitus types.
“It also showed that having more than one criterion available increased sensitivity for distinguishing diabetes mellitus types72.”
From The epidemiology of type 1 diabetes mellitus in older adults (2025) · cites this paper as [72]
Cites
(2004) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/j.cct.2004.08.002 · Cited by 268 · see citing works
De Lusignan, S., Khunti, K., Belsey, J., Hattersley, A., Van Vlymen, J., Gallagher, H., Millett, C., Hague, N. J., Tomson, C., Harris, K., et al. (2010) · Diabetic Medicine · doi:10.1111/j.1464-5491.2009.02917.x · Cited by 122 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The epidemiology of type 1 diabetes mellitus in older adults
Tomic, D., Harding, J. L., Jenkins, A. J., Shaw, J. E., & Magliano, D. J. (2025) · Nature Reviews Endocrinology · doi:10.1038/s41574-024-01046-z · Cited by 58 · see citing works
“It also showed that having more than one criterion available increased sensitivity for distinguishing diabetes mellitus types 72 .”
Self-citationXu, Y., Echouffo Tcheugui, J. B., Coresh, J., Grams, M. E., Selvin, E., Fang, M., & Shin, J. (2025) · Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism · doi:10.1111/dom.16300 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
- Authors
- Sajjadi, S. F., Sacre, J. W., Chen, L., Wild, S. H., Shaw, J. E., & Magliano, D. J.
- Affiliations
- Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute (AU)
- University of Edinburgh (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Sajjadi, Seyedeh Forough
- ORCID
- Venue
- Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2023-09
- Volume
- 203
- Pages
- 110859
- ISSN
- 0168-8227 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4385336656
- Cited by
- 13
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4
- FWCI
- 0.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Licence
- Locations
- Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Diabetes and associated disorders
- Keywords
- type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, administrative health data, insulin use, oral antidiabetic drugs, diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity
- MeSH terms
- Algorithms, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Humans, Databases, Factual
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