Fig 1.
PRISMA Flowchart of paper selection.
† References –30–41. ‡ This is the number of journal articles included which equals to 47 studies as some studies had reported their results in more than one paper.
Table 1.
Characteristics of studies conducting a one- step screening strategy using only OGTT.
Table 2.
Characteristics of studies conducting multi—step screening strategies.
Fig 2.
Pooled response rates to diabetes screening invitation.
Estimates are from Bayesian random effects meta-analysis. CrI = Credible intervals which is similar to a confidence intervals generated using Frequentist statistics.
Fig 3.
Pooled positive outcome rates of diabetes screening using risk score, risk questionnaire and impaired glucose test.
Estimates are from Bayesian random effects meta-analysis. CrI = Credible intervals which is similar to confidence intervals generated using Frequentist statistics.
Fig 4.
Pooled yield rates from diabetes screening meta-analysis.
Estimates are from Bayesian random effects meta-analysis. CrI = Credible intervals which is similar to a confidence intervals generated using Frequentist statistics. NNS* = Number needed to screen at OGTT step to detect one case of type 2 diabetes. NNS** = Number needed to screen at initial screening step (if a multi-step strategy is used) to detect to detect one case of type 2 diabetes.
Fig 5.
Modelling the screening outcome in a community with 1000 adult population.
*One Step strategy = Direct invitation to OGTT (Studies in Table 1). **Two- Step strategy = One step screen before OGTT (Studies in Table 2). ***Three/Four Step Studies = Two or three screening steps before OGTT (Studies in Table 2).
Table 3.
Association between screening outcomes and study level characteristics†:- i) developed/developing country‡ ii) rural/urban location and iii) invitation method and screening response and yield rates from random effects meta-analysis of T2DM screening studies.