目的:系统概述用于糖尿病前期筛查的糖尿病风险预测模型,以促进糖尿病的一级预防。
方法:Cochrane,PubMed,Embase,对WebofScience和ChinaNationalKnowledgeInfrastructure(CNKI)数据库进行了2023年8月30日的全面搜索,并将涉及用于筛查糖尿病前期风险的糖尿病预测模型的研究包括在搜索中。诊断研究质量评估清单(QUADAS-2)工具用于偏倚风险评估,Stata和R软件用于汇集模型效应大小。
结果:共筛选了29375篇文章,最后将来自24项研究的20个模型纳入系统综述.最常见的预测因素是年龄,身体质量指数,糖尿病家族史,高血压病史,和身体活动。关于模型预测性能的指标,区分和校准仅在79.2%和4.2%的研究中报告,分别,导致模型预测结果存在显著的异质性,这可能与模型预测组合之间的差异以及缺乏重要的方法论信息有关。
结论:许多模型被用来预测糖尿病,由于糖尿病前期和糖尿病之间存在关联,研究人员还使用这些模型来筛查糖尿病前期人群.虽然这是一个新的临床实践探索,血糖代谢谱的差异,潜在的并发症,两种人群之间的干预方法不容忽视,这种差异导致模型的有效性和准确性较差。因此,没有推荐的最优模型,并且不建议在替代人群中使用现有模型进行风险识别;未来的研究应侧重于改善现有模型的临床相关性和预测性能.
OBJECTIVE: To provide a systematic overview of diabetes risk prediction models used for prediabetes screening to promote primary prevention of diabetes.
METHODS: The Cochrane, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases were searched for a comprehensive search period of 30 August 30, 2023, and studies involving diabetes prediction models for screening prediabetes risk were included in the search. The Quality Assessment Checklist for Diagnostic Studies (QUADAS-2) tool was used for risk of bias assessment and Stata and R software were used to pool model effect sizes.
RESULTS: A total of 29 375 articles were screened, and finally 20 models from 24 studies were included in the systematic review. The most common predictors were age, body mass index, family history of diabetes, history of hypertension, and physical activity. Regarding the indicators of model prediction performance, discrimination and calibration were only reported in 79.2% and 4.2% of studies, respectively, resulting in significant heterogeneity in model prediction results, which may be related to differences between model predictor combinations and lack of important methodological information.
CONCLUSIONS: Numerous models are used to predict diabetes, and as there is an association between prediabetes and diabetes, researchers have also used such models for screening the prediabetic population. Although it is a new clinical practice to explore, differences in glycaemic metabolic profiles, potential complications, and methods of intervention between the two populations cannot be ignored, and such differences have led to poor validity and accuracy of the models. Therefore, there is no recommended optimal model, and it is not recommended to use existing models for risk identification in alternative populations; future studies should focus on improving the clinical relevance and predictive performance of existing models.