Cited by 213Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsHealth Promotion and Cardiovascular PreventionDiabetes Management and Research

Tools for Predicting the Risk of Type 2 Diabetes in Daily Practice

Schwarz, P., Li, J., Lindstrom, J., Tuomilehto, J.·2009·Hormone and Metabolic Research

Abstract

The discussion about the diagnosis and treatment of type 2 diabetes - and, more generally, dysglycaemia - should be framed in terms of a continuum of risk. A variety of tools have been developed to identify individuals with an increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes and to quantify the probability of type 2 diabetes either cross-sectionally or prospectively. Such scores are based on traditional risk factors for diabetes, such as age, body mass index (BMI), and family history, while others also evaluate metabolic risk factors such as lipid levels. The performance of a diabetes risk-prediction tool is generally assessed by measuring its accuracy, availability, practicability, and costs. This review discusses the validity and use of today's available major risk-prediction tools for clinical practice, and assesses the scope and cost-effectiveness of available tools. Among these prediction tools, American Diabetes Association (ADA) Risk Tools, Finnish Diabetes Risk Score (FINDRISC), National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) Risk Score, and Study to Prevent Non-Insulin Dependents Diabetes Mellitus (STOP-NIDDM) Risk Score were of our concern. We conclude that the FINDRISC tool is currently the best available tool for use in clinical practice in Caucasian populations, but modifications may be required if applied to other ethnic groups.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1055/s-0028-1087203

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • FINDRISC is the most commonly evaluated diabetes risk score worldwide and has been recommended as the best available risk assessment tool for clinical practice by a systematic review.

    “Moreover, FINDRISC is the most commonly evaluated diabetes risk score worldwide [17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25] and has been recommended as the best available risk assessment tool for use in the clinical practice by a systematic review [11].”
  • Oral glucose tolerance test is the most valid tool for diagnosing diabetes.

    “Oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) has been shown to be the most valid tool for diagnosing diabetes [11].”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schwarz, P., Li, J., Lindstrom, J., & Tuomilehto, J.
Affiliations
University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus (DE)
Venue
Hormone and Metabolic Research
Published
2008-11-19
Volume
41
Issue
02
Pages
86-97
ISSN
  • 0018-5043 (ISSN-L)
  • 1439-4286
OpenAlex
W2014763445
Cited by
213
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 19
FWCI
9.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Hormone and Metabolic Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Site cant be reached (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
Keywords
type 2 diabetes, diabetes risk prediction, risk scoring, FINDRISC, dysglycemia, body mass index, family history (medicine), serum lipids, cost-effectiveness, ethnic differences, clinical practice
MeSH terms
Aged, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Europe, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Risk Factors, Body Mass Index, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Risk Assessment

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