RSS Feeds
Screening Adults for Type 2 Diabetes: A Review of the Evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
- Russell Harris, MD, MPH;
- Katrina Donahue, MD, MPH;
- Saif S. Rathore, MPH;
- Paul Frame, MD;
- Steven H. Woolf, MD, MPH; and
- Kathleen N. Lohr, PhD
- From University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, and Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina; Yale University Medical School, New Haven, Connecticut; Tri-County Family Medicine, Cohocton, New York; and Virginia Commonwealth University, Fairfax, Virginia.
Abstract
Background: Type 2 diabetes mellitus is associated with a heavy burden of suffering. Screening for diabetes is controversial.
Purpose: To examine the evidence that screening and earlier treatment are effective in reducing morbidity and mortality associated with diabetes.
Data Sources: MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, reviews, and experts, all of which addressed key questions about screening.
Study Selection: Studies that provided information about the existence and length of an asymptomatic phase of diabetes; studies that addressed the accuracy and reliability of screening tests; and randomized, controlled trials with health outcomes for various treatment strategies were selected.
Data Extraction: Two reviewers abstracted relevant information using standardized abstraction forms and graded articles according to U.S. Preventive Services Task Force criteria.
Data Synthesis: No randomized, controlled trial of screening for diabetes has been performed. Type 2 diabetes mellitus includes an asymptomatic preclinical phase; the length of this phase is unknown. Screening tests can detect diabetes in its preclinical phase. Over the 10 to 15 years after clinical diagnosis, tight glycemic control probably reduces the risk for blindness and end-stage renal disease, and aggressive control of hypertension, lipid therapy, and aspirin use reduce cardiovascular events. The magnitude of the benefit is larger for cardiovascular risk reduction than for tight glycemic control. The additional benefit of starting these treatments in the preclinical phase, after detection by screening, is uncertain but is probably also greater for cardiovascular risk reduction.
Conclusions: The interventions that are most clearly beneficial during the preclinical phase are those that affect the risk for cardiovascular disease. The magnitude of additional benefit of initiating tight glycemic control during the preclinical phase is uncertain but probably small.
Article and Author Information
-
Disclaimer: The authors of this article are responsible for its contents, including any clinical or treatment recommendations. No statement in this article should be construed as an official position of the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
-
Grant Support: This study was conducted by the Research Triangle Institute–University of North Carolina Evidence-based Practice Center under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, Maryland (contract no. 290-97-0011, task order 3).
-
Requests for Single Reprints: Reprints are available from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Web site (http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstfix.htm) or the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Publications Clearinghouse.
-
Current Author Addresses: Dr. Harris: Sheps Center for Health Services Research, 725 Airport Road, CB # 7590, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-2949.
-
Dr. Donahue: University of North Carolina, CB #7595 Manning, Chapel Hill, NC 27599.
-
Dr. Rathore: Yale University School of Medicine, PO Box 208025, New Haven, CT 06520-8025.
-
Dr. Frame: Tri-County Family Medicine, Box 112, Cohocton, NY 14826.
-
Dr. Woolf: Virginia Commonwealth University, 3712 Charles Stewart Drive, Fairfax, VA 22033.
-
Dr. Lohr: Research Triangle Institute, 3040 Cornwallis Road, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709.
- Copyright ©2004 by the American College of Physicians
Related Clinical Content
