Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Archives
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • Other Publications
    • abfm

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
American Board of Family Medicine
  • Other Publications
    • abfm
American Board of Family Medicine

American Board of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Archives
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • JABFM on Bluesky
  • JABFM On Facebook
  • JABFM On Twitter
  • JABFM On YouTube
Research ArticleOriginal Research

Are Population-Based Diabetes Models Useful for Individual Risk Estimation?

Barry G. Saver, J. Lee Hargraves and Kathleen M. Mazor
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine July 2011, 24 (4) 399-406; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2011.04.110029
Barry G. Saver
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
J. Lee Hargraves
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kathleen M. Mazor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    Figure 1.

    Ten- and 20-year United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) outcome model and Diabetes Personal Health Decisions (PHD) outcome model predictions of myocardial infarction for white women.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1.

    Case Characteristics for the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study and Diabetes Personal Health Decision Models

    CharacteristicsUKPDSDiabetes PHD
    Baseline
        Age (years)6060
        SexMale and femaleMale and female
        Race/ethnicityWhiteNon-Hispanic white
        Age at diagnosis of diabetes (years)5050
        Weight100 kg220 lb
        Height1.75 m5′ 9″
        Total/HDL cholesterol6/1 mmol/L232/39 mg/dL (LDL estimated at ∼165 mg/dL by program)
        Systolic blood pressure (mm Hg)160160 (diastolic unknown)
        Glycosylated hemoglobin (%)99
        SmokerYesYes
        Complications or pre-existing conditionsNoneNone
        Other factorsRisk factors at diagnosis equal to current levelsNo medications; asymptomatic with unknown blood glucose level at diagnosis; sedentary; no family history of diabetes; started smoking at age 18; sedentary; sees doctor at least twice a year for checkups but no regular foot or eye exams
    Varied
        CholesterolTotal/HDL: 4/1 mmol/LLDL: 96 mg/dL
        Systolic blood pressure (mm Hg)130130
        Glycosylated hemoglobin (%)77
        SmokerEx-smokerStopped
        Weight80 kg176 lb
        Race/ethnicityAfro-Caribbean, Asian-IndianBlack, Asian, Hispanic
    • UKPDS, United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study; PHD, personal health decisions; HDL, high-density lipoprotein; LDL, low-density lipoprotein.

    • View popup
    Table 2.

    Comparison of Predicted Probabilities from the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study Outcomes Model and Diabetes Personal Health Decision Model

    CaseEstimated Probability of Outcome Over the Subsequent 10 Years
    MIStrokeAmputationBlindnessRenal failure
    UKPDS (95% CI)PHDUKPDS (95% CI)PHDUKPDS (95% CI)PHDUKPDS (95% CI)PHDUKPDS (95% CI)PHD
    Male
        White base case0.35 (0.28–0.42)*0.430.12 (0.06–0.17)*0.210.03 (0.01–0.05)>*0.010.03 (0.02–0.04)>*0.010.02 (0.01–0.04)>*0.00
        Lower cholesterol0.25 (0.19–0.30)*0.370.11 (0.06–0.16)*0.210.03 (0.01–0.05)>*0.000.03 (0.02–0.04)>*0.010.02 (0.00–0.04)>*0.00
        Lower BP0.28 (0.23–0.33)*0.380.06 (0.04–0.09)<*0.130.02 (0.01–0.03)>0.010.03 (0.02–0.04)>*0.010.01 (0.00–0.02)>*0.00
        Lower HbA1c0.28 (0.22–0.34)*0.410.10 (0.05–0.14)*0.180.01 (0.00–0.02)>0.010.02 (0.01–0.02)>*0.010.02 (0.00–0.04)>*0.00
        Quit smoking0.27 (0.22–0.32)0.290.09 (0.05–0.13)*0.130.03 (0.01–0.05)>*0.010.03 (0.02–0.04)>*0.010.02 (0.01–0.04)>*0.00
        Lose weight0.34 (0.28–0.41)0.350.12 (0.06–0.17)0.140.03 (0.01–0.05)>*0.010.03 (0.02–0.04)>*0.010.02 (0.01–0.04)>*0.00
        Afro-Caribbean/black†0.12 (0.04–0.19)<*0.410.13 (0.07–0.19)*0.200.03 (0.01–0.05)>*0.010.03 (0.02–0.04)>*0.000.02 (0.01–0.04)>*0.00
        Asian-Indian/Asian†0.35 (0.28–0.41)*0.450.12 (0.06–0.17)*0.200.03 (0.01–0.04)>0.010.03 (0.02–0.04)>*0.000.02 (0.00–0.04)>0.01
        Latino—0.42—0.21—0.01—0.01—0.01
    Female
        White base case0.18 (0.13–0.23)*0.360.08 (0.04–0.12)<*0.200.03 (0.01–0.05)>*0.010.03 (0.02–0.04)>*0.000.02 (0.01–0.04)>*0.00
        Lower cholesterol0.11 (0.08–0.15)<*0.280.06 (0.03–0.10)<*0.200.03 (0.01–0.05)>*0.000.03 (0.02–0.04)>*0.000.03 (0.01–0.04)>*0.00
        Lower BP0.13 (0.09–0.16)*0.260.04 (0.02–0.06)<*0.10.02 (0.01–0.03)>*0.000.03 (0.02–0.05)>*0.000.01 (0.00–0.02)>0.00
        Lower HbA1c0.14 (0.10–0.18)<*0.310.06 (0.03–0.10)<*0.150.01 (0.01–0.02)>*0.000.02 (0.01–0.03)>*0.000.02 (0.01–0.04)>*0.00
        Quit smoking0.14 (0.10–0.17)*0.230.06 (0.04–0.09)<*0.120.03 (0.01–0.05)>*0.000.03 (0.02–0.04)>*0.000.02 (0.00–0.04)>*0.00
        Lose weight0.17 (0.13–0.22)*0.260.08 (0.04–0.12)*0.130.03 (0.01–0.05)>*0.010.03 (0.02–0.04)>*0.000.02 (0.00–0.04)>*0.00
        Afro-Caribbean/black†0.05 (0.01–0.08)<*0.300.09 (0.04–0.13)*0.170.03 (0.01–0.05)>*0.010.03 (0.02–0.04)>*0.010.02 (0.01–0.04)>*0.00
        Asian-Indian/Asian†0.17 (0.13–0.22)*0.340.08 (0.04–0.12)<*0.220.03 (0.01–0.05)>*0.000.03 (0.02–0.04)>*0.010.02 (0.01–0.04)>0.01
        Latina—0.33—0.16—0.01—0.01—0.01
    Estimated Probability of Outcome Over the Subsequent 20 Years
    Male
        White base case0.52 (0.43–0.61)*0.700.19 (0.10–0.27)<*0.460.05 (0.01–0.08)>0.020.04 (0.02–0.06)>*0.020.04 (0.00–0.08)<*0.14
        Lower cholesterol0.38 (0.30–0.47)*0.660.18 (0.09–0.26)<*0.490.05 (0.01–0.09)>*0.010.05 (0.03–0.06)>*0.010.04 (0.00–0.08)<*0.12
        Lower BP0.43 (0.35–0.51)*0.650.10 (0.06–0.15)<*0.350.03 (0.01–0.05)>0.020.04 (0.02–0.06)>*0.010.02 (0.00–0.03)<0.03
        Lower HbA1c0.44 (0.35–0.52)*0.690.16 (0.09–0.24)<*0.440.02 (0.00–0.04)>0.010.03 (0.01–0.04)>*0.010.04 (0.00–0.08)>*0.00
        Quit smoking0.44 (0.37–0.52)*0.540.16 (0.09–0.22)<*0.360.05 (0.02–0.09)>*0.010.05 (0.03–0.07)>*0.020.05 (0.00–0.09)<*0.14
        Lose weight0.51 (0.42–0.60)*0.660.18 (0.10–0.27)<*0.380.05 (0.01–0.08)>0.010.04 (0.02–0.06)>*0.020.04 (0.00–0.08)>0.01
        Afro-Caribbean/black†0.21 (0.09–0.33)<*0.670.22 (0.12–0.32)<*0.450.05 (0.01–0.09)>0.020.05 (0.03–0.07)>*0.010.04 (0.00–0.09)<*0.14
        Asian-Indian/Asian†0.52 (0.43–0.61)*0.710.19 (0.10–0.28)<*0.480.04 (0.01–0.08)>0.020.04 (0.02–0.06)>*0.010.04 (0.00–0.08)<*0.24
        Latino—0.72—0.48—0.01—0.02—0.12
    Female
        White base case0.29 (0.21–0.37)<*0.600.14 (0.07–0.21)<*0.460.05 (0.01–0.09)>0.020.05 (0.03–0.07)>*0.000.04 (0.00–0.08)<*0.17
        Lower cholesterol0.19 (0.13–0.25)<*0.520.12 (0.05–0.18)<*0.460.05 (0.01–0.09)>*0.000.05 (0.03–0.07)>*0.000.05 (0.00–0.09)<*0.14
        Lower BP0.22 (0.16–0.28)<*0.490.07 (0.03–0.10)<*0.310.03 (0.01–0.05)>*0.000.05 (0.03–0.07)>*0.000.01 (0.00–0.04)<0.03
        Lower HbA1c0.23 (0.16–0.30)<*0.560.11 (0.05–0.17)<*0.390.02 (0.01–0.04)>*0.000.03 (0.02–0.04)>*0.000.05 (0.00–0.09)>0.00
        Quit smoking0.24 (0.18–0.30)*0.440.11 (0.07–0.16)<*0.350.06 (0.02–0.10)>*0.010.05 (0.03–0.07)>*0.000.05 (0.00–0.09)<*0.15
        Lose weight0.28 (0.21–0.36)*0.480.13 (0.06–0.20)<*0.380.05 (0.02–0.09)>*0.010.04 (0.02–0.06)>*0.000.04 (0.00–0.08)>0.00
        Afro-Caribbean/black†0.09 (0.03–0.16)<*0.560.15 (0.07–0.23)<*0.440.05 (0.01–0.09)>0.020.05 (0.03–0.07)>*0.020.05 (0.00–0.09)<*0.12
        Asian-Indian/Asian†0.28 (0.21–0.36)<*0.620.14 (0.07–0.21)<*0.520.05 (0.02–0.09)>*0.000.05 (0.03–0.07)>*0.020.05 (0.00–0.09)<*0.31
        Latina—0.61—0.47—0.02—0.02—0.17
    • Differences between smaller and larger predictions of at least 100% are flagged with < or > to show the direction of the difference. Diabetes PHD predictions were obtained on April 10, 2010 and July 8, 2010.

    • * Diabetes PHD prediction lies outside the 95% CI produced by the UKPDS outcomes model.

    • † First labels (Afro-Caribbean and Asian-Indian) apply to UKPDS columns and second labels (black and Asian) apply to Diabetes PHD columns. Note that these populations are different, but persons in the United States or the United Kingdom attempting to use the model developed in the other country might be tempted to use the comparison group under the assumption that they should be comparable.

    • UKPDS, United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study outcome model; PHD, Personal Health Decision outcome model; MI, myocardial infarction; BP, blood pressure; HbA1c, glycosylated hemoglobin.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine: 24 (4)
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine
Vol. 24, Issue 4
July-August 2011
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Cover (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Board of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Are Population-Based Diabetes Models Useful for Individual Risk Estimation?
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Board of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Board of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
5 + 7 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Are Population-Based Diabetes Models Useful for Individual Risk Estimation?
Barry G. Saver, J. Lee Hargraves, Kathleen M. Mazor
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Jul 2011, 24 (4) 399-406; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2011.04.110029

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Are Population-Based Diabetes Models Useful for Individual Risk Estimation?
Barry G. Saver, J. Lee Hargraves, Kathleen M. Mazor
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Jul 2011, 24 (4) 399-406; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2011.04.110029
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusions
    • Notes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Inaccurate Risk Perceptions and Individualized Risk Estimates by Patients with Type 2 Diabetes
  • In this Issue: Testing Characteristics of Patient-Centered Medical Homes, Patient Self-Care, Predicting Outcomes, and Practical Clinical Information
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Identifying and Addressing Social Determinants of Health with an Electronic Health Record
  • Integrating Adverse Childhood Experiences and Social Risks Screening in Adult Primary Care
  • A Pilot Comparison of Clinical Data Collection Methods Using Paper, Electronic Health Record Prompt, and a Smartphone Application
Show more Original Research

Similar Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Authors & Reviewers

  • Info For Authors
  • Info For Reviewers
  • Submit A Manuscript/Review

Other Services

  • Get Email Alerts
  • Classifieds
  • Reprints and Permissions

Other Resources

  • Forms
  • Contact Us
  • ABFM News

© 2025 American Board of Family Medicine

Powered by HighWire