Determination of Prevalence of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus by Screening Tests using a Mathematical Formula in Place of Invasive Blood Tests
Introduction: True prevalence rate of diabetes mellitus in a population can be obtained by using invasive tests but it is practically difficult on large scale. Aim: To find out the feasibility of mass non-invasive screening test to detect the prevalence of diabetes mellitus in rural population...
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
JCDR Research and Publications Private Limited
2016-01-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://jcdr.net/articles/PDF/7039/14812_CE[Ra1]_F(AK)_PF1(BMAK)_PFA(AK)_PF2(PAG).pdf |
| Summary: | Introduction: True prevalence rate of diabetes mellitus in a
population can be obtained by using invasive tests but it is
practically difficult on large scale.
Aim: To find out the feasibility of mass non-invasive screening
test to detect the prevalence of diabetes mellitus in rural
population of India with the help of a mathematical formula.
Materials and Methods: From population of 18800 residing in
two adjacent rural areas of Delhi, a systematic random sample
of 1005 adult subjects was screened for diabetes by using
urine benedicts test, Canrisk questionnaire, Madras Diabetes
Research Foundation-Indian Diabetic Risk Score (MDRF-IDRS)
and determined prevalence of diabetes (pA) gauzed by each of
these screening tests. Simultaneously, each subject’s glycaemic
status was confirmed by standard fasting Plasma glucose (FPG)
and postprandial plasma glucose (PPPG) levels. The blood test
was also used to determine true prevalence which was crosschecked with the prevalence estimated (Pe) by the above stated
screening tests using a mathematical formula.
Results: The true prevalence of T2DM in more than 18 years
of population by Fasting Plasma Sugar (FPS) was 4.5% while
that by using mathematical formulae that estimated by urine
test, Canrisk test and MDRF-IDRS was 4.4%, 4.4 and 4.3%
respectively. When more than 35 years age-group was selected,
true prevalence was 7.4% and estimated prevalence by Canrisk
test was 7.1% (as against gold standard of Fasting) and 6.9%
(as against PP). By fasting urine test it came out to be 7.2%
and by PP urine test it was 7.4%. In population l8-35 years, the
prevalence of diabetes was 1.1% by plasma glucose test. By
using Canrisk, it came out to be 1.04%.
Conclusion: Individual screening tests such as urine, Canrisk
and MDRF-IDRS can be used to estimate prevalence rates of
diabetes in rural areas by means of mathematical formula which
would be close to true estimates. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2249-782X 0973-709X |