Effectiveness of diabetes mellitus screening recommendations

Florence J. Dallo, Susan C. Weller

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

38 Scopus citations


Screening guidelines proposed by the Expert Committee on the Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus have been endorsed by several medical societies. However, one-third of cases are undiagnosed, and complications at the time of diagnosis indicate that disease may have been present for several years before diagnosis. This study evaluates the effectiveness of the guidelines for detecting new cases of diabetes mellitus. By using a cross-sectional, representative sample of the United States (National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey, NHANES III), the guidelines are tested on adults, 20 years and older without a prior diagnosis of diabetes. Individuals are classified as nondiabetics (n = 6,241) or as having undiagnosed diabetes (n = 274) based on their blood glucose. Screening when one risk factor is present, as stated in the guidelines, has a true-positive rate of 100% and would require that 83% of the population be tested. Screening when two risk factors are present is more efficient, with a comparable true-positive rate (98%), but requires that only 59% of the population be tested. A notable finding is the earlier age of onset among minorities, which may be associated with other health disparities. Because diabetes occurs at younger ages in minorities, screening whites who are ≥40 and minorities ≥30 years of age has a high true-positive rate (95%) and also reduces testing (60%). The screening guidelines would be effective, if followed, and would essentially eliminate undiagnosed, cases of diabetes.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)10574-10579
Number of pages6
JournalProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
Issue number18
StatePublished - Sep 2 2003

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • General


Dive into the research topics of 'Effectiveness of diabetes mellitus screening recommendations'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this