Diagnostic accuracy of the Finnish Diabetes Risk Score (FINDRISC) for undiagnosed T2DM in Peruvian population

Highlights

• •

  Diagnostic accuracy of FINDRISC, LA-FINDRISC and Peruvian Risk Score was similar.

• •

  A simplified version of FINDRISC was created with only four variables.

• •

  The performance of the FINDRISC in Peruvian population was moderate.

• •

  Forty percent of individuals with T2DM are unaware of diagnosis.

Abstract

Aims

To assess the diagnostic accuracy of the Finnish Diabetes Risk Score (FINDRISC) for undiagnosed T2DM and to compare its performance with the Latin-American FINDRISC (LA-FINDRISC) and the Peruvian Risk Score.

Materials and methods

A population-based study was conducted. T2DM and undiagnosed T2DM were defined using oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). Risk scores assessed were FINDRISC, LA-FINDRISC and Peruvian Risk Score. Diagnostic accuracy of risk scores was estimated using the c-statistic and the area under the ROC curve (aROC). A simplified version of FINDRISC was also derived.

Results

Data from 1609 individuals, mean age 48.2 (SD: 10.6), 810 (50.3%) women, were collected. A total of 176 (11.0%; 95%CI: 9.4%–12.5%) were classified as having T2DM, and 71 (4.7%; 95%CI: 3.7%–5.8%) were classified as having undiagnosed T2DM. Diagnostic accuracy of the FINDRISC (aROC = 0.69), LA-FINDRISC (aROC = 0.68), and Peruvian Risk Score (aROC = 0.64) was similar (p = 0.15). The simplified FINDRISC, with 4 variables, had a slightly better performance (aROC = 0.71) than the other scores.

Conclusion

The performance of FINDRISC, LA-FINDRISC and Peruvian Risk Score for undiagnosed T2DM was similar. A simplified FINDRISC can perform as well or better for undiagnosed T2DM. The FINDRISC may be useful to detect cases of undiagnosed T2DM in resource-constrained settings.