Screening for type 2 diabetes mellitus

Peer, Nasheeta; Balakrishna, Yusentha; Durão, Solange

doi:10.1002/14651858.cd005266.pub2

Cited by 50 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 107 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Current Australian guidelines recommend regular laboratory diabetes screening only for those at high risk of diabetes [ 14 , 19 ]. Nonetheless, compliance with these recommendations was suboptimal, as one-half of individuals at increased risk of diabetes were screened for diabetes in three years (one-third among those not at high risk of diabetes).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Screening among these individuals should be performed regularly, either through fasting blood glucose (FBG) or haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) tests [ 14 – 17 ]. Beyond these groups, noninvasive and straightforward tools such as the Australian Type 2 Diabetes Risk (AUSDRISK) Assessment Tool questionnaire have been developed to identify other individuals at risk of diabetes who require further assessment [ 11 , 18 , 19 ]. For example, the AUSDRISK is a questionnaire that scores the probability of a person developing diabetes mellitus within five years or with undiagnosed diabetes [ 20 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Diabetes Mellitus Diagnosis and Screening in Australian General Practice: A National Study

Zheng

Bernardo

Stocks

et al. 2022

Journal of Diabetes Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims. To investigate the epidemiology of diabetes diagnosis and screening in Australian general practice. Methods. Cross-sectional study using electronic health records of 1,522,622 patients aged 18+ years attending 544 Australian general practices (MedicineInsight database). The prevalence of diagnosed diabetes and diabetes screening was explored using all recorded diagnoses, laboratory results, and prescriptions between 2016 and 2018. Their relationship with patient sociodemographic and clinical characteristics was also investigated. Results. Overall, 7.5% (95% CI 7.3, 7.8) of adults had diabetes diagnosis, 0.7% (95% CI 0.6, 0.7) prediabetes, and 0.3% (95% CI 0.3, 0.3) unrecorded diabetes/prediabetes (elevated glucose levels without a recorded diagnosis). Patients with unrecorded diabetes/prediabetes had clinical characteristics similar to those with recorded diabetes, except for a lower prevalence of overweight/obesity (55.5% and 69.9%, respectively). Dyslipidaemia was 1.8 times higher (36.2% vs. 19.7%), and hypertension was 15% more likely (38.6% vs. 33.8%) among patients with prediabetes than with diabetes. Diabetes screening (last three years) among people at high risk of diabetes was 55.2% (95% CI 52.7, 57.7), with lower rates among young or elderly males. Conclusions. Unrecorded diabetes/prediabetes is infrequent in Australian general practice, but prediabetes diagnosis was also lower than expected. Diabetes screening among high-risk individuals can be improved, especially in men, to enhance earlier diabetes diagnosis and management.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diabetes Mellitus Diagnosis and Screening in Australian General Practice: A National Study

Zheng

Bernardo

Stocks

et al. 2022

Journal of Diabetes Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although screening is conducted in many countries including Japan, the effects of screening for hypertension, hyperglycemia, or dyslipidemia have not been fully examined. 2,3,13 Low consultation rates after health checkups might contribute to the lack of efficacy of screening in Japan.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Screening for NCDs is conducted in many countries, including both developed and developing countries. 2,3 In Japan, annual health checkups are promoted under the universal health insurance system for the prevention and early detection of hypertension, hyperglycemia, and dyslipidemia. 4 In April 2008, the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare initiated specific health checkups focused on visceral adiposity in order to reduce lifestyle diseases.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of reminder letters after health checkups on the consultation behavior of participants with possible hypertension, hyperglycemia, and dyslipidemia: A retrospective cohort study using administrative claims data in Japan

Hoshino

Takahashi

et al. 2021

Journal of Occupational Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives Prevention of and early treatment for noncommunicable diseases such as hypertension, hyperglycemia, and dyslipidemia are important, as these diseases are asymptomatic in early stages but can lead to critical conditions such as macro‐ and microvascular disorders later on. While screening is conducted worldwide, low rates of hospital visits after screening is a common issue. We aimed to investigate the effect of reminder letters on the consultation behavior of screened participants. Methods We used administrative claims data from a database managed by JMDC Inc for participants of health checkups in 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017, who belonged to a health insurance society. Reminder letters were sent regularly 6 months after checkups to improve participant consultation behavior. Participants who screened positive for hypertension, hyperglycemia, and dyslipidemia, and who were not taking medication for any of these diseases at the time of health checkups, were included in the analyses. Results A total of 1739 participants in 2014, 1693 in 2015, 2002 in 2016, and 2144 in 2017 were included in the analysis for hypertension. The cumulative proportion of hospital visits gradually increased over the course of 12 months after checkups in all years. After 2015, spikes, albeit very small ones, were observed at 6 months after checkups in accordance with the timing of reminder letters. Similar trends were observed for hyperglycemia and dyslipidemia. Conclusions Sending reminder letters is a potentially effective approach to increase hospital visits, but further improvements (ie, multiple reminders) may be necessary to affect enhancements in participant consultation behavior.

show abstract

“…This is because there is limited information to provide evidence about best practice for screening interventions for type 2 diabetes mellitus and even less evidence in low- and middle-income countries [ 15 ]. A recently published Cochrane review assessed the effects of any type of screening compared with no screening for type 2 diabetes [ 16 ] and found only one trial, the ADDITION-Cambridge trial [ 17 ], that met their inclusion criteria. The ADDITION-Cambridge trial consisted of 20,184 participants aged 40–69 years from general practices in England who were at risk for diabetes but had no known diabetes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Screening strategies for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review protocol

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: There is limited evidence on whether screening for type 2 diabetes mellitus affects health outcomes. A recent systematic review of randomised clinical trials found only one trial that met their inclusion criteria; therefore, current guidelines for screening interventions for type 2 diabetes mellitus are based on expert opinions and best practice rather than synthesised evidence. This systematic review seeks to collate evidence from nonrandomised studies to investigate the effect of screening for adults with type 2 diabetes on outcomes including diabetes-related morbidity, mortality (all-cause and diabetes-related) and harms. Methods: This systematic review will follow Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) guidelines for the synthesis of non-randomised studies. We will search PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, Academic Search Premier and Health Source Nursing Academic (from inception onwards). We will include non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time-series studies, repeated measures studies and concurrently controlled prospective cohort studies. The primary outcome will be diabetes-related morbidity (microvascular complications of diabetic retinopathy, nephropathy or neuropathy or macrovascular complications of non-fatal myocardial infarction, peripheral arterial disease or non-fatal stroke). The secondary outcomes will be mortality (allcause and diabetes-related) and harms of screening strategies to patients (including psychological harms or adverse events following treatments) or to health care system (including resource allocation for false-positives or overdiagnosis). Two reviewers will independently screen all citations and full-text articles. Data will be abstracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. The risk of bias of individual studies will be appraised using the ROBINS-I tool. GRADE will be used to determine the quality of the scientific evidence. If feasible, we will conduct random effects meta-analysis where appropriate. If necessary, analyses will be conducted to explore the potential sources of heterogeneity (e.g. age, sex, socioeconomic status, rural versus urban or low-middle income versus high-income country). We will disseminate the findings via publications and through relevant networks.

show abstract

Screening for type 2 diabetes mellitus

Cited by 50 publications

References 107 publications

Diabetes Mellitus Diagnosis and Screening in Australian General Practice: A National Study

Diabetes Mellitus Diagnosis and Screening in Australian General Practice: A National Study

Effect of reminder letters after health checkups on the consultation behavior of participants with possible hypertension, hyperglycemia, and dyslipidemia: A retrospective cohort study using administrative claims data in Japan

Screening strategies for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review protocol

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About