Feasibility of the FINDRISC questionnaire to identify individuals with impaired glucose tolerance in Swedish primary care. A cross‐sectional population‐based study
Abstract
Aim To evaluate the performance of the FINDRISC questionnaire as a tool to recruit individuals with impaired glucose tolerance for lifestyle intervention programmes. Methods A cross-sectional population-based study in primary Health Care Centres in a middle-sized Swedish town. All 9734 individuals, aged 35-75 years, living within a defined area, were invited by mail to fill in and return the FINDRISC questionnaire. Participants with a risk score ≥ 15 (n = 525) were invited to perform an oral glucose tolerance test while those with known diabetes were excluded. Results In total, 5452 questionnaires (58%) were returned and revealed a mean risk-score of 8.5 ± 4.5 (mean ± SD). We found that 525 participants had a risk-score ≥ 15 and 302 (58%) were further examined with an oral glucose tolerance testing (OGTT). Among them we detected 11% with previously undiagnosed Type 2 diabetes, 16% with impaired glucose tolerance and 29% with impaired fasting glucose. A FINDRISC score ≥ 15 was associated with a positive predictive value of 55% for impaired glucose metabolism (impaired fasting glucose + impaired glucose tolerance + Type 2 diabetes) and of 16% for impaired glucose tolerance, respectively. The positive predictive value for impaired glucose tolerance did not increase to more than 17% when choosing the cut-point 17, while there was a significant increase in the positive predictive value for impaired glucose metabolism (70%). Conclusions The FINDRISC questionnaire is a useful instru…
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?
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].”
From A Novel Testing Model for Opportunistic Screening of Pre-Diabetes and Diabetes among U.S. Adults (2015) · cites this paper as [21]
Cites
Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin
(2002) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa012512 · Cited by 19,011 · see citing works
Tuomilehto, J., Lindström, J., Eriksson, J. G., Valle, T. T., Hämäläinen, H., Ilanne-Parikka, P., Keinänen-Kiukaanniemi, S., Laakso, M., Louheranta, A., Rastas, M., et al. (2001) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm200105033441801 · Cited by 10,873 · see citing works
Tankova, T., Chakarova, N., Atanassova, I., & Dakovska, L. (2011) · Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice · doi:10.1016/j.diabres.2010.12.020 · Cited by 101 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Zhang, L., Zhang, Z., Zhang, Y., Hu, G., & Chen, L. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0097865 · Cited by 130 · see citing works
A Novel Testing Model for Opportunistic Screening of Pre-Diabetes and Diabetes among U.S. Adults
Zhang, Y., Hu, G., Zhang, L., Mayo, R., & Chen, L. (2015) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0120382 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
Hellgren, M. I., Jansson, P.-A., Wedel, H., & Lindblad, U. (2016) · Scandinavian Journal of Public Health · doi:10.1177/1403494816663539 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
- Authors
- Hellgren, M. I., Petzold, M., Björkelund, C., Wedel, H., Jansson, P. ‐., & Lindblad, U.
- Affiliations
- University of Gothenburg (SE)
- Nordic School of Public Health (SE)
- Corresponding author
- Hellgren, M. I.
- Venue
- Diabetic Medicine
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2012-11-14
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1501-1505
- ISSN
- 0742-3071 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-5491
- OpenAlex
- W1574782806
- Cited by
- 47
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 3.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Diabetic Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Göteborgs Universitet
- 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
- FINDRISC questionnaire, impaired glucose tolerance, impaired fasting glucose, type 2 diabetes, risk score, screening, positive predictive value, oral glucose tolerance test, primary care, undiagnosed diabetes
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Antihypertensive Agents, Blood Glucose, Community Health Services, Cross-Sectional Studies, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Fasting, Feasibility Studies, Female, Fruit, Glucose Tolerance Test, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Compliance, Predictive Value of Tests, Primary Health Care, Surveys and Questionnaires, Risk Factors, Sweden, Vegetables, Exercise, Body Mass Index, Glucose Intolerance, Patient Selection, Waist Circumference
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