↓ Skip to main content

Performance of the 2015 US Preventive Services Task Force Screening Criteria for Prediabetes and Undiagnosed Diabetes

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
8 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
17 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
Title
Performance of the 2015 US Preventive Services Task Force Screening Criteria for Prediabetes and Undiagnosed Diabetes
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, April 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11606-018-4436-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthew J. O’Brien, Kai McKeever Bullard, Yan Zhang, Edward W. Gregg, Mercedes R. Carnethon, Namratha R. Kandula, Ronald T. Ackermann

Abstract

In 2015, The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended screening for prediabetes and undiagnosed diabetes (collectively called dysglycemia) among adults aged 40-70 years with overweight or obesity. The recommendation suggests that clinicians consider screening earlier in people who have other diabetes risk factors. To compare the performance of limited and expanded screening criteria recommended by the USPSTF for detecting dysglycemia among US adults. Cross-sectional analysis of survey and laboratory data collected from nationally representative samples of the civilian, noninstitutionalized US adult population. A total of 3643 adults without diagnosed diabetes who underwent measurement of hemoglobin A1c (A1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), and 2-h plasma glucose (2-h PG). Screening eligibility according to the limited criteria was based on age 40 to 70 years old and overweight/obesity. Screening eligibility according to the expanded criteria was determined by meeting the limited criteria or having ≥ 1 of the following risk factors: family history of diabetes, history of gestational diabetes or polycystic ovarian syndrome, and non-white race/ethnicity. Dysglycemia was defined by A1c ≥ 5.7%, FPG ≥ 100 mg/dL, and/or 2-h PG ≥ 140 mg/dL. Among the US adult population without diagnosed diabetes, 49.7% had dysglycemia. Screening based on the limited criteria demonstrated a sensitivity of 47.3% (95% CI, 44.7-50.0%) and specificity of 71.4% (95% CI, 67.3-75.2%). The expanded criteria yielded higher sensitivity [76.8% (95% CI, 73.5-79.8%)] and lower specificity [33.8% (95% CI, 30.1-37.7%)]. Point estimates for the sensitivity of the limited criteria were lower in all minority groups and significantly different for Asians compared to non-Hispanic whites [29.9% (95% CI, 23.4-37.2%) vs. 49.8% (95% CI, 45.9-53.7%); P < .001]. Diabetes screening that follows the limited USPSTF criteria will identify approximately half of US adults with dysglycemia. Screening other high-risk subgroups defined in the USPSTF recommendation would improve detection of dysglycemia and may reduce associated racial/ethnic disparities.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 15%
Student > Master 7 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 13%
Student > Postgraduate 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 4%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 14 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 15%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 16 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 78. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 July 2018.
All research outputs
#539,204
of 25,142,442 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#431
of 8,111 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,338
of 335,059 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#11
of 129 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,142,442 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,111 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 335,059 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 129 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.