Cited by 236Diabetes and associated disordersPancreatic function and diabetesDiabetes Management and Research

Systematic population screening, using biomarkers and genetic testing, identifies 2.5% of the U.K. pediatric diabetes population with monogenic diabetes

Open access
Shepherd, Maggie, Shields, Beverley, Hammersley, Suzanne, Hudson, Michelle, McDonald, Timothy J., Colclough, Kevin, Oram, Richard A., Knight, Bridget +11 more·2016·Diabetes Care

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Monogenic diabetes is rare but is an important diagnosis in pediatric diabetes clinics. These patients are often not identified as this relies on the recognition of key clinical features by an alert clinician. Biomarkers (islet autoantibodies and C-peptide) can assist in the exclusion of patients with type 1 diabetes and allow systematic testing that does not rely on clinical recognition. Our study aimed to establish the prevalence of monogenic diabetes in U.K. pediatric clinics using a systematic approach of biomarker screening and targeted genetic testing. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We studied 808 patients (79.5% of the eligible population) <20 years of age with diabetes who were attending six pediatric clinics in South West England and Tayside, Scotland. Endogenous insulin production was measured using the urinary C-peptide creatinine ratio (UCPCR). C-peptide–positive patients (UCPCR ≥0.2 nmol/mmol) underwent islet autoantibody (GAD and IA2) testing, with patients who were autoantibody negative undergoing genetic testing for all 29 identified causes of monogenic diabetes. RESULTS: A total of 2.5% of patients (20 of 808 patients) (95% CI 1.6–3.9%) had monogenic diabetes (8 GCK, 5 HNF1A, 4 HNF4A, 1 HNF1B, 1 ABCC8, 1 INSR). The majority (17 of 20 patients) were managed without insulin treatment. A similar proportion of the population had type 2 diabetes (3.3%, 27 of 808 patients). CONCLUSIONS: This large systematic study confirms a prevalence of 2.5% of patients with monogenic diabetes who were <20 years of age in six U.K. clinics. This figure suggests that ∼50% of the estimated 875 U.K. pediatric patients with monogenic diabetes have still not received a genetic diagnosis. This biomarker screening pathway is a practical approach that can be used to identify pediatric patients who are most appropriate for genetic testing.

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 · 10.2337/dc16-0645

Cites

33 of 33 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?

  • Atypical diabetes is becoming increasingly difficult to precisely define in the absence of a definitive set of tests for either type 1 or type 2 diabetes.

    “although admittedly, atypical diabetes is becoming increasingly dif fi cult to precisely de fi ne in the absence of a de fi nitive set of tests for either type of diabetes (158 -160,163 -169)”

    From 2. Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes: <i>Standards of Care in Diabetes—2024</i> (2024) · cites this paper as [165]

    The Discussion reports five pediatric patients (0.6%) whose diabetes was atypical and hard to classify, supporting the difficulty of defining some cases. It does not say classification is becoming increasingly difficult or attribute that difficulty to an absence of definitive tests for both type 1 and type 2 diabetes; instead, it reports that testing and clinical criteria could classify over 99% of cases. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    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

1 of the 34 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shepherd, M., Shields, B., Hammersley, S., Hudson, M., McDonald, T. J., Colclough, K., Oram, R. A., Knight, B., Hyde, C., Cox, J., Mallam, K., Moudiotis, C., Smith, R., Fraser, B., Robertson, S., Greene, S., Ellard, S., Pearson, E. R., & Hattersley, A. T.
Affiliations
  • University of Exeter (GB)
  • Royal Devon & Exeter NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • North Devon District Hospital (GB)
  • Royal Cornwall Hospital Trust (GB)
  • Plymouth Hospital (GB)
  • Torbay and South Devon NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • University of Dundee (GB)
Corresponding author
Shepherd, Maggie
Venue
Diabetes Care
Published
2016-06-06
Volume
39
Issue
11
Pages
1879-1888
ISSN
  • 0149-5992 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-5548
OpenAlex
W2419234444
Cited by
236
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 3
FWCI
16.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Diabetes Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Discovery Research Portal (University of Dundee) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Open Research Exeter (University of Exeter) (acceptedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
  • Royal Devon and Exeter Research Repository (Royal Devon and Exeter) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Wellcome Trust and the Department of Health (HICF-1009-041)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Diabetes and associated disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Pancreatic function and diabetes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
Keywords
monogenic diabetes, pediatric diabetes, prevalence, systematic screening, islet autoantibodies, glutamic acid decarboxylase antibodies, genetic testing, glucokinase, HNF1A, HNF4α, HNF1B, ABCC8, insulin receptor, type 2 diabetes, genetic diagnosis
MeSH terms
Germinal Center Kinases, Adolescent, Autoantibodies, C-Peptide, Child, Child, Preschool, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Diagnosis, Differential, England, Female, Genetic Testing, Humans, Infant, Male, Receptor, Insulin, Scotland, Biomarkers, Antigens, CD, Prevalence, Protein Serine-Threonine Kinases, Sequence Analysis, DNA, Hepatocyte Nuclear Factor 1-alpha, Hepatocyte Nuclear Factor 1-beta, Hepatocyte Nuclear Factor 4, Young Adult, Sulfonylurea Receptors

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