Cited by 30Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeDiabetes Treatment and ManagementDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins

Decision models of prediabetes populations: A systematic review

Open access
Leal, Jose, Morrow, Liam Mc, Khurshid, Waqar, Pagano, Eva, Feenstra, Talitha·2019·Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism

Abstract

Aims: With evidence supporting the use of preventive interventions for prediabetes populations and the use of novel biomarkers to stratify the risk of progression, there is a need to evaluate their cost‐effectiveness across jurisdictions. Our aim is to summarize and assess the quality and validity of decision models and model‐based economic evaluations of populations with prediabetes, to evaluate their potential use for the assessment of novel prevention strategies and to discuss the knowledge gaps, challenges and opportunities. Materials and methods: We searched Medline, Embase, EconLit and NHS EED between 2000 and 2018 for studies reporting computer simulation models of the natural history of individuals with prediabetes and/or we used decision models to evaluate the impact of treatment strategies on these populations. Data were extracted following PRISMA guidelines and assessed using modelling checklists. Two reviewers independently assessed 50% of the titles and abstracts to determine whether a full text review was needed. Of these, 10% was assessed by each reviewer to cross‐reference the decision to proceed to full review. Using a standardized form and double extraction, each of four reviewers extracted 50% of the identified studies. Results: A total of 29 published decision models that simulate prediabetes populations were identified. Studies showed large variations in the definition of prediabetes and model structure. The inclusion of complications in prediabetes (n = 8) and type 2 diabetes (n = 17) health states also varied. A minority of studies simulated annual changes in risk factors (glycaemia, HbA1c, blood pressure, BMI, lipids) as individuals progressed in the models (n = 7) and accounted for heterogeneity among individuals with prediabetes (n = 7). Conclusions: Current prediabetes decision models have considerable limitations in terms of their quality and validity and do not allow evaluation of stratified strategies using novel biomarkers, highlighting a clear need for more comprehensive prediabetes decision models.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/dom.13684

Cites

66 of 66 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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 reverse transition from T2D back to prediabetes was not included, to align with common practices, because this reversion is rare and unlikely to have a meaningful impact on cost-effectiveness over a lifetime horizon.

    “We did not include a reverse transition from T2D back to prediabetes to be aligned with common practices in previous studies [29] as this reversion is rare and unlikely to have a meaningful impact on cost-effectiveness over a lifetime horizon.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Leal, J., Morrow, L. M., Khurshid, W., Pagano, E., & Feenstra, T.
Affiliations
  • Health Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health University of Oxford Oxford UK
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Azienda Ospedaliera Citta' della Salute e della Scienza di Torino (IT)
  • University Medical Center Groningen (NL)
Corresponding author
Feenstra, Talitha
Venue
Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-04
Volume
21
Issue
7
Pages
1558-1569
ISSN
  • 1462-8902 (ISSN-L)
  • 1463-1326
OpenAlex
W2919856689
Cited by
30
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 2
FWCI
1.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Diabetes Obesity and Metabolism (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Rivm Repository (Netherlands National Institute for Public Health and the Environment) (submittedVersion)
  • Rivm (National Institute for Public Health and the Environment) (submittedVersion)
  • Rivm (National Institute for Public Health and the Environment) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
  • European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (16.0097)
  • University of Oxford
  • European Commission (HORIZON2020, 115881)
  • Innovative Medicines Initiative (115881)
  • Staatssekretariat für Bildung, Forschung und Innovation (16.0097)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Keywords
prediabetes, decision models, cost-effectiveness, type 2 diabetes prevention, biomarkers, risk stratification, heterogeneity, model validity, health states
MeSH terms
Computer Simulation, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Decision Support Techniques, Humans, Prediabetic State, Models, Statistical

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