Cited by 36Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsHealth Promotion and Cardiovascular PreventionDiabetes Management and Research

Prevalence of undiagnosed abnormal glucose tolerance in adult patients cared for by general practitioners in Hungary. Results of a risk-stratified screening based on FINDRISC questionnaire

Open access
Winkler, Gábor, Hídvégi, Tibor, Vándorfi, Győző, Balogh, Sándor, Jermendy, György·2013·Medical Science Monitor

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus is rapidly increasing, worldwide and also in Hungary. Timely diagnosis and early treatment could be aided by targeted screening. Recognizing this, the Hungarian Diabetes Association initiated a risk-stratified screening with the involvement of primary care physicians. MATERIAL/METHODS: In the first phase of screening, the FINDRISC questionnaire was completed, followed by an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) for those with a score of ≥12. Between September 1, 2010 and March 31, 2011, 70,432 non-diabetic adults, who visited their general practitioners for any reason, were involved in the screening. Of these, 68,476 questionnaires proved to be suitable for processing. RESULTS: From the questionnaires, 28,077 (41.0%) had a score of ≥12. A valid OGTT was performed in 22,846 cases; of this group 3,217 subjects (14.1%) had elevated fasting glucose levels, 5,663 (24.8%) had impaired glucose tolerance, and 1,750 (7.6%) had manifest, previously undiagnosed, diabetes mellitus. Overall, from the valid OGTT group, 46.5% subjects had some degree of glucose intolerance. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the FINDRISC questionnaire, the risk-stratified screening for diabetes mellitus proved to be simple and cost-effective method for the early detection of carbohydrate metabolism disorders. Using this method, the prevalence rate of previously undiagnosed abnormal glucose tolerance was high in adult patients cared for by general practitioners in Hungary.

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 · 10.12659/msm.883747

Cites

23 of 23 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?

  • 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 [22]

    The Methods and Discussion describe this Hungarian FINDRISC evaluation and mention evaluations in other countries. They do not establish that FINDRISC is the most commonly evaluated diabetes risk score worldwide. The systematic-review recommendation is attributed to a different citation, [11], not to this paper. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

5 of the 28 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [17]The Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group Strategies to identify adults at high risk for Type 2 diabetes Diabetes Care 2005 28 150 56 PMC1314971 15616247

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Winkler, G., Hídvégi, T., Vándorfi, G., Balogh, S., & Jermendy, G.
Affiliations
  • University of Miskolc (HU)
  • Petz Aladár Megyei Oktató Kórház (HU)
  • Centre for Medicine, Diabetology and Metabolism, Veszprém County Csolnoky Hospital, Veszprém, Hungary
  • National Institute for Primary Health Care, Budapest, Hungary
  • Bajcsy-Zsilinszky Kórház és Rendelőintézet (HU)
Corresponding author
Jermendy, György
Venue
Medical Science Monitor
Published
2013
Volume
19
Pages
67-72
ISSN
  • 1234-1010 (ISSN-L)
  • 1643-3750
OpenAlex
W2069299460
Cited by
36
References
28
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 1
FWCI
4.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
  • Medical Science Monitor (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Magyar Diabetes Társaság
  • European Association for the Study of Diabetes
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, impaired glucose tolerance, undiagnosed diabetes, FINDRISC questionnaire, risk-stratified screening, oral glucose tolerance test, fasting blood glucose, prevalence, primary care, early detection, Hungary
MeSH terms
Adult, Blood Glucose, Female, Patient Care, Glucose Tolerance Test, Humans, Hungary, Male, Mass Screening, Surveys and Questionnaires, Risk Factors, Prevalence, Glucose Intolerance, General Practitioners

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