Estimating the risk of developing type 2 diabetes: a comparison of several risk scores: the Cohorte Lausannoise study.
Fiche du document
- doi: 10.2337/dc11-0206
- issn: 0149-5992
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.2337/dc11-0206
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pmid/21636799
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/1935-5548
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/urn/urn:nbn:ch:serval-BIB_1D2B14929DF76
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess , Copying allowed only for non-profit organizations , https://serval.unil.ch/disclaimer
Sujets proches
Type II diabetes Ketosis resistant diabetes Adult onset diabetes Noninsulin-dependent diabetes NIDDM (Diabetes) Stable diabetes Maturity onset diabetes Type 2 diabetesCiter ce document
R. Schmid et al., « Estimating the risk of developing type 2 diabetes: a comparison of several risk scores: the Cohorte Lausannoise study. », Serveur académique Lausannois, ID : 10.2337/dc11-0206
Métriques
Partage / Export
Résumé
To compare in the Swiss population the results of several scores estimating the risk of developing type 2 diabetes. This was a single-center, cross-sectional study conducted between 2003 and 2006 in Lausanne, Switzerland. Overall, 3,251 women and 2,937 men, aged 35-75 years, were assessed, of which 5,760 (93%) were free from diabetes and included in the current study. The risk of developing type 2 diabetes was assessed using seven different risk scores, including clinical data with or without biological data. Participants were considered to be eligible for primary prevention according to the thresholds provided for each score. The results were then extrapolated to the Swiss population of the same sex and age. The risk of developing type 2 diabetes increased with age in all scores. The prevalence of participants at high risk ranged between 1.6 and 24.9% in men and between 1.1 and 15.7% in women. Extrapolated to the Swiss population of similar age, the overall number of participants at risk, and thus susceptible to intervention, ranged between 46,708 and 636,841. In addition, scores that included the same clinical variables led to a significantly different prevalence of participants at risk (4.2% [95% CI 3.4-5.0] vs. 12.8% [11.5-14.1] in men and 2.9% [2.4-3.6] vs. 6.0% [5.2-6.9] in women). CONCLUSIONS; The prevalence of participants at risk for developing type 2 diabetes varies considerably according to the scoring system used. To adequately prevent type 2 diabetes, risk-scoring systems must be validated for each population considered.