title: Different type 2 diabetes risk assessments predict dissimilar numbers at 'high risk': a retrospective analysis of diabetes risk-assessment tools.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Use of a validated risk-assessment tool to identify individuals at high risk of developing type 2 diabetes is currently recommended. It is under-reported, however, whether a different risk tool alters the predicted risk of an individual.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  This study explored any differences between commonly used validated risk-assessment tools for type 2 diabetes.
  
  
  METHODS
  Cross-sectional analysis of individuals who participated in a workplace-based risk assessment in Carmarthenshire, South Wales.
  
  
  METHODS
  Retrospective analysis of 676 individuals (389 females and 287 males) who participated in a workplace-based diabetes risk-assessment initiative. Ten-year risk of type 2 diabetes was predicted using the validated QDiabetes(®), Leicester Risk Assessment (LRA), FINDRISC, and Cambridge Risk Score (CRS) algorithms.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Differences between the risk-assessment tools were apparent following retrospective analysis of individuals. CRS categorised the highest proportion (13.6%) of individuals at 'high risk' followed by FINDRISC (6.6%), QDiabetes (6.1%), and, finally, the LRA was the most conservative risk tool (3.1%). Following further analysis by sex, over one-quarter of males were categorised at high risk using CRS (25.4%), whereas a greater percentage of females were categorised as high risk using FINDRISC (7.8%).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The adoption of a different valid risk-assessment tool can alter the predicted risk of an individual and caution should be used to identify those individuals who really are at high risk of type 2 diabetes.
authors.affiliation: Policy, Research and International Development, Public Health Wales, Cardiff, UK.
authors.forename: Benjamin J
authors.initials: BJ
authors.lastname: Gray
authors.affiliation: Diabetes Research Group, College of Medicine; Applied Sports Technology Exercise and Medicine (A-STEM) Research Centre, College of Engineering, Swansea University, Swansea, UK.
authors.forename: Richard M
authors.initials: RM
authors.lastname: Bracken
authors.affiliation: RedBull North America, Santa Monica, CA, US.
authors.forename: Daniel
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Turner
authors.affiliation: Hywel Dda Health Board, Prince Philip Hospital, Llanelli, UK.
authors.forename: Kerry
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Morgan
authors.affiliation: Public Health Wales, Carmarthen, UK.
authors.forename: Michael
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Thomas
authors.affiliation: Tata Steel Packaging Recycling, Trostre, Llanelli, UK.
authors.forename: Sally P
authors.initials: SP
authors.lastname: Williams
authors.affiliation: Hywel Dda Health Board, Prince Philip Hospital, Llanelli, UK.
authors.forename: Meurig
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Williams
authors.affiliation: Hywel Dda Health Board, Prince Philip Hospital, Llanelli, UK.
authors.forename: Sam
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Rice
authors.affiliation: Diabetes Research Group, College of Medicine, Swansea University, Swansea, UK.
authors.forename: Jeffrey W
authors.initials: JW
authors.lastname: Stephens
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D015992:Body Mass Index; D003430:Cross-Sectional Studies; D003924:Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 / Q000453:epidemiology / Q000209:etiology / Q000517:prevention & control*; D005260:Female; D006282:Health Personnel; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008403:Mass Screening; D008669:Metallurgy; D008875:Middle Aged; D009765:Obesity / Q000150:complications* / Q000453:epidemiology; D016272:Occupational Health; D015995:Prevalence; D011634:Public Health; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D018570:Risk Assessment; D012307:Risk Factors; D014852:Wales / Q000453:epidemiology; D017132:Workplace
keywords: diabetes mellitus, type 2; general practice; primary health care; public health; risk; risk assessment