Cited by 130Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsHealth Promotion and Cardiovascular PreventionDiabetes Management and Research

Evaluation of Finnish Diabetes Risk Score in Screening Undiagnosed Diabetes and Prediabetes among U.S. Adults by Gender and Race: NHANES 1999-2010

Open access
Zhang, Lu, Zhang, Zhenzhen, Zhang, Yurong, Hu, Gang, Chen, Liwei·2014·PLoS ONE

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of Finnish Diabetes Risk Score (FINDRISC) in detecting undiagnosed diabetes and prediabetes among U.S. adults by gender and race. METHODS: This cross-sectional analysis included participants (aged ≥20 years) from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 1999-2010. Sensitivity, specificity, area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and the optimal cutoff points for identifying undiagnosed diabetes and prediabetes were calculated for FINDRISC by gender and race/ethnicity. RESULTS: Among the 20,633 adults (≥20 years), 49.8% were women and 53.0% were non-Hispanic White. The prevalence of undiagnosed diabetes and prediabetes was 4.1% and 35.6%, respectively. FINDRISC was positively associated with the prevalence of diabetes (OR = 1.48 for 1 unit increase, p<0.001) and prediabetes (OR = 1.15 for 1 unit increase, p<0.001). The area under ROC for detecting undiagnosed diabetes was 0.75 for total population, 0.74 for men and 0.78 for women (p = 0.04); 0.76 for White, 0.76 for Black and 0.72 for Hispanics (p = 0.03 for White vs. Hispanics). The area under ROC for detecting prediabetes was 0.67 for total population, 0.66 for men and 0.70 for women (p<0.001); 0.68 for White, 0.67 for Black and 0.65 for Hispanics (p<0.001 for White vs. Hispanics). The optimal cutoff point was 10 (sensitivity = 0.75) for men and 12 (sensitivity = 0.72) for women for detecting undiagnosed diabetes; 9 (sensitivity = 0.61) for men and 10 (sensitivity = 0.69) for women for detecting prediabetes. CONCLUSIONS: FINDRISC is a simple and non-invasive screening tool to identify individuals at high risk for diabetes in the U.S. adults.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0097865

Cites

54 of 54 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?

  • Our previous study indicated that the FINDRISC score is a valid tool in detecting both undiagnosed diabetes and pre-diabetes in U.S. men and women with different race/ethnicities.

    “In addition, our previous study has indicated that FINDRISC score is a valid tool in detecting both undiagnosed diabetes and pre-diabetes in U.S. men and women with different race/ethnicities [26].”
  • FINDRISC is a valid and reliable tool to identify undiagnosed diabetes and pre-diabetes in the general U.S. population in both men and women with different races/ethnicities.

    “In addition, our group recently evaluated the validity of FINDRISC in the general U.S. population and found it is a valid and reliable tool to identify undiagnosed diabetes and pre-diabetes in both men and women with different races/ethnicities [26].”

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

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhang, L., Zhang, Z., Zhang, Y., Hu, G., & Chen, L.
Affiliations
  • Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center New Orleans (US)
  • Michigan State University (US)
  • First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University (CN)
  • Pennington Biomedical Research Center (US)
  • Clemson University (US)
Corresponding author
Chen, Liwei
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2014-05-22
Volume
9
Issue
5
Pages
e97865
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1966075779
Cited by
130
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 1
FWCI
9.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Clemson University
  • Louisiana State University
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, undiagnosed diabetes, prediabetes, diabetes screening, risk prediction model, sex differences, racial and ethnic differences, sensitivity and specificity, cut-off values, NHANES, United States adults, Black and Hispanic populations, non-Hispanic whites, diabetes prevalence, diabetes risk stratification
MeSH terms
Adult, Cross-Sectional Studies, Diabetes Mellitus, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Nutrition Surveys, Prediabetic State, Risk Factors, Sex Factors, United States, Population Groups, Young Adult

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