Show simple item record

A multivariate logistic regression equation to screen for dysglycaemia: development and validation

dc.contributor.authorTabaei, B. P.en_US
dc.contributor.authorEngelgau, M. M.en_US
dc.contributor.authorHerman, William H.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2010-06-01T22:37:39Z
dc.date.available2010-06-01T22:37:39Z
dc.date.issued2005-05en_US
dc.identifier.citationTabaei, B. P.; Engelgau, M. M.; Herman, W. H. (2005). "A multivariate logistic regression equation to screen for dysglycaemia: development and validation." Diabetic Medicine 22(5): 599-605. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/75603>en_US
dc.identifier.issn0742-3071en_US
dc.identifier.issn1464-5491en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/75603
dc.identifier.urihttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=15842515&dopt=citationen_US
dc.description.abstractAims  To develop and validate an empirical equation to screen for dysglycaemia [impaired fasting glucose (IFG), impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) and undiagnosed diabetes]. Methods  A predictive equation was developed using multiple logistic regression analysis and data collected from 1032 Egyptian subjects with no history of diabetes. The equation incorporated age, sex, body mass index (BMI), post-prandial time (self-reported number of hours since last food or drink other than water), systolic blood pressure, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol and random capillary plasma glucose as independent covariates for prediction of dysglycaemia based on fasting plasma glucose (FPG) ≥ 6.1 mmol/l and/or plasma glucose 2 h after a 75-g oral glucose load (2-h PG) ≥ 7.8 mmol/l. The equation was validated using a cross-validation procedure. Its performance was also compared with static plasma glucose cut-points for dysglycaemia screening. Results  The predictive equation was calculated with the following logistic regression parameters: P  = 1 + 1/(1 + e −X ) = where X = −8.3390 + 0.0214 (age in years) + 0.6764 (if female) + 0.0335 (BMI in kg/m 2 ) + 0.0934 (post-prandial time in hours) + 0.0141 (systolic blood pressure in mmHg) − 0.0110 (HDL in mmol/l) + 0.0243 (random capillary plasma glucose in mmol/l). The cut-point for the prediction of dysglycaemia was defined as a probability ≥ 0.38. The equation's sensitivity was 55%, specificity 90% and positive predictive value (PPV) 65%. When applied to a new sample, the equation's sensitivity was 53%, specificity 89% and PPV 63%. Conclusions  This multivariate logistic equation improves on currently recommended methods of screening for dysglycaemia and can be easily implemented in a clinical setting using readily available clinical and non-fasting laboratory data and an inexpensive hand-held programmable calculator. Diabet. Med. 22, 599–605 (2005)en_US
dc.format.extent131274 bytes
dc.format.extent3109 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain
dc.publisherBlackwell Science Ltden_US
dc.rights© 2005 Diabetes UKen_US
dc.subject.otherCapillary Glucoseen_US
dc.subject.otherImpaired Fasting Glucoseen_US
dc.subject.otherImpaired Glucose Toleranceen_US
dc.subject.otherRisk Factorsen_US
dc.subject.otherScreeningen_US
dc.subject.otherUndiagnosed Diabetesen_US
dc.titleA multivariate logistic regression equation to screen for dysglycaemia: development and validationen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelMedicine (General)en_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationum* Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, MI,en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationum† Department of Epidemiology, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, MI, USAen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationother† Division of Diabetes Translation, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgiaen_US
dc.identifier.pmid15842515en_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/75603/1/j.1464-5491.2005.01467.x.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1464-5491.2005.01467.xen_US
dc.identifier.sourceDiabetic Medicineen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePan XR, Li GW, Hu YH, Wang JX, Yang WY, An ZX et al. Effects of diet and exercise in preventing NIDDM in people with impaired glucose tolerance. The Da Qing IGT Diabetes Study. Diabetes Care 1997; 20: 537 – 544.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTuomilehto J, Lindstrom J, Eriksson JG, Valle TT, Hamalainen H, Ilanne-Parikka P et al. Finnish Diabetes Prevention Study Group. Prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus by changes in lifestyle among subjects with impaired glucose tolerance. N Engl J Med 2001; 344: 1343 – 1350.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference3 The Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group. Reduction in the incidence of Type 2 diabetes with lifestyle modification or metformin. N Engl J Med 2002; 346: 393 – 403.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBuchanan TA, Xiang AH, Peters RK, Kjos SL, Marrogquin A, Goico J et al. Preservation of pancreatic beta-cell function and prevention of type 2 diabetes by pharmacological treatment of insulin resistance in high-risk Hispanic women. Diabetes 2002; 51: 2796 – 2803.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChiasson JL, Josse RG, Gomis R, Hanefeld M, Karasik A, Laakso M, STOP-NIDDM Trial Research Group. Acarbose for prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus: The STOP-NIDDM randomised trial. Lancet 2002; 359: 2072 – 2077.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEngelgau MM, Venkat Narayan KM, Herman WH. Screening for type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2000; 23: 1563 – 1580.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceColagiuri S, Cull CA, Holman RR, The UKPDS Group. Are lower fasting plasma glucose levels at diagnosis of type 2 diabetes associated with improved outcomes. UK Prospective Diabetes Study 61 Diabetes Care 2002; 25: 1410 – 1417.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHerman WH, Ali MA, Aubert RE, Engelgau MM, Kenny SJ, Gunter EW et al. Diabetes mellitus in Egypt: risk factors and prevalence. Diabet Med 1995; 12: 1126 – 1131.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTabaei BP, Herman WH. A multivariate logistic regression equation to screen for diabetes: development and validation. Diabetes Care 2002; 25: 1999 – 2003.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePeduzzi P, Concato J, Kemper E, Holford TR, Feinstein AR. A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 1996; 12: 1373 – 1379.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBagley SC, White H, Golomb BA. Logistic regression in the medical literature: standards for use and reporting, with particular attention to one medical domain. J Clin Epidemiol 2001; 54: 979 – 985.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference12 SAS Institute Inc. SAS/STAT user's guide, Version 6, 4th edn Vol. 2. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc., 1990.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference13 SAS Institute Inc. SAS/STAT Software. Changes and Enhancements Through Release of 6.12. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc., 1997.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied Logistic Regression, 2nd edn. New York, NY: Wiley & Sons, 2000.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSteyerberg EW, Harrell FE, Jr, Borsboom GJJM, Eijkemans MJC, Vergouwe Y, Habbema JDF. Internal validation of predictive models: efficiency of some procedures for logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 2001; 54: 774 – 781.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAltman DG, Royston P. What do we mean by validating a prognostic model? Statist Med 2000; 19: 453 – 473.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSteyerberg EW, Eijkemans MJC, Harrell FE, Jr, Habbema JDF. Prognostic modeling with logistic regression analysis: a comparison of selection and estimation methods in small data sets. Statist Med 2000; 19: 1059 – 1079.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHarrell FE, Jr, Lee KL, Mark DB. Multivariable prognostic models: issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors. Statist Med 1996; 15: 361 – 387.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJustice AC, Covinsky KE, Berlin JA. Assessing the generalizability of prognostic information. Ann Intern Med 1999; 130: 515 – 524.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSteyerberg EW, Eijkemans MJC, Houwelingen JC, Lee KL, Habbema JD. Prognostic models based on literature and individual patient data in logistic regression analysis. Statist Med 2000; 19: 141 – 160.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference21 American Diabetes Association and National Institute of Diabetes Digestive and Kidney Disease. The prevention or delay of type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2002; 25: 742 – 749.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHerman WH, Engelgau MM. Commentary: screening for type 2 diabetes mellitus in asymptomatic adults. Clin Diabetes 2000; 18: 68.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRolka DB, Narayan KMV, Thompson TJ, Goldman D, Lindenmayer J, Alich K et al. Performance of recommended screening tests for undiagnosed diabetes and dysglycemia. Diabetes Care 2001; 24: 1899 – 1903.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEalovega MW, Tabaei BP, Brandle M, Burke R, Herman WH. Opportunistic screening for diabetes in routine clinical practice. Diabetes Care 2004; 27: 9 – 12.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceStern MP, Williams K, Haffner SM. Identification of individuals at high risk of type 2 diabetes: do we need the oral glucose tolerance test? Ann Intern Med 2002; 136: 575 – 581.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceStolk RP, Grobbee DE, Orchard TJ. Why use the oral glucose tolerance test? Diabetes Care 1995; 18: 1045 – 1049.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDrash AL. Is the oral glucose tolerance test obsolete? Diabetes Care 1995; 18: 1072 – 1073.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKatz MH. Multivariable Analysis: a Practical Guide for Clinicians. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1999.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRuige JB, de Neeling JN, Kostense PJ, Bouter LM, Heine RJ. Performance of an NIDDM screening questionnaire based on symptoms and risk factors. Diabetes Care 1997; 20: 491 – 496.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBurden ML, Burden AC. The American Diabetes Association screening questionnaire for diabetes. Is it worthwhile in the UK? Diabetes Care 1994; 17: 97.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBaan CA, Ruige JB, Stolik RP, Witteman JCM, Dekker JM, Heine RJ, Feskens EJM. Performance of a predictive model to identify undiagnosed diabetes in a health care setting. Diabetes Care 1999; 22: 213 – 219.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLindstrom J, Tuomilehto J. The diabetes risk score: a practical tool to predict type 2 diabetes risk. Diabetes Care 2003; 26: 725 – 731.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGriffin SJ, Little PS, Hales CN, Kinmonth AL, Wareham NJ. Diabetes risk score: towards earlier detection of type 2 diabetes in general practice. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 2000; 16: 164 – 171.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePark PJ, Griffin SJ, Sargeant L, Wareham NJ. The performance of a risk score in predicting undiagnosed hyperglycemia. Diabetes Care 2002; 25: 984 – 988.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSpijkerman AMW, Yuyun MF, Griffin SJ, Dekker JM, Nijpels G, Wareham NJ. The performance of a risk score as a screening test for undiagnosed hyperglycemia in ethnic minority groups: data from the 1999 health survey of England. Diabetes Care 2004; 27: 116 – 122.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMcNeely MJ, Boyko EJ, Leonetti DL, Kahn SE, Fujimoto WY. Comparison of a clinical model, the oral glucose tolerance test, and fasting glucose for prediction of type 2 diabetes risk in Japanese Americans. Diabetes Care 2003; 26: 758 – 763.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFletcher RH, Fletcher SW, Wagner EH. Clinical Epidemiology: the Essentials, 3rd edn. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins, 1996.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHennekens CH, Buring JE. Epidemiology in Medicine. Boston, MA: Little Brown, 1987.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceShaw JE, Zimmet PZ, De Courten M, Dowse GK, Chitson P, Gareeboo H et al. Impaired fasting glucose or impaired glucose tolerance: what best predicts future diabetes in mauritius? Diabetes Care 1999; 22: 399 – 402.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMooy JM, Gootenhuis PA, deVries H, Kostense PJ, Popp-Snijders C, Bouter LM et al. Intra-individual variation of glucose, specific insulin and proinsulin concentrations measured in two oral glucose tolerance tests in general Caucasian population. The Hoorn Study. Diabetologia 1996; 39: 298 – 305.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEschwege E, Charles MA, Simon D, Thibult N, Balkau B. Reproducibility of the diagnosis of diabetes over a 30-month follow-up. The Paris Prospective Study. Diabetes Care 2001; 24: 1941 – 1944.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBurke JP, Haffner SM, Gaskill SP, Williams KL, Stern MP. Reservation from type 2 diabetes to nondiabetic status: influence of the 1997 American Diabetes Association criteria. Diabetes Care 1998; 21: 1266 – 1270.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencede Vegt F, Dekker JM, Stehouwer CD, Nijpels G, Bouter LM, Heine RJ. The 1997 American Diabetes Association criteria versus the 1985 World Health Organization criteria for the diagnosis of abnormal glucose tolerance: poor agreement in the Hoorn Study. Diabetes Care 1998; 21: 1686 – 1690.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDavidson MB, Peters AL, Schriger DL. An alternative approach to the diagnosis of diabetes with a review of the literature. Diabetes Care 1995; 18: 1065 – 1071.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference45 UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group. UK prospective diabetes study XII. differences between Asian, Afro-Caribbean and White Caucasian type 2 diabetic patients at diagnosis of diabetes. Diabet Med 1994; 11: 670 – 677.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencede Courten M, Zimmet P. Screening for non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus: where to draw the line. Diabet Med 1997; 14: 95 – 98.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.