| Name of study |
Bruneck Study |
| Inclusion criteria |
White men and women, aged 40–79 years |
| Exclusion criteria |
Not reported |
| Notes |
No baseline data (except white participants aged > 40 years, N = 919) |
| Risk of bias |
| Bias |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
| Study participation: description of source population or population of interest |
Low risk |
Bruneck study, a long‐term prospective population‐based study of atherosclerosis and its risk factors |
| Study participation: description of glycaemic status at baseline |
Low risk |
Yes |
| Study participation: adequate description of sampling frame & recruitment |
Low risk |
Yes |
| Study participation: adequate description of period & recruitment place |
Low risk |
Yes |
| Study participation: adequate description of inclusion & exclusion criteria |
Low risk |
Inclusion criteria described |
| Study attrition: description of attempts to collect information on participants who dropped out |
Low risk |
Yes |
| Study attrition: reasons for loss to follow‐up provided |
Low risk |
Yes |
| Study attrition: adequate description of participants lost to follow‐up |
High risk |
Scarce data |
| Study attrition: no important differences between participants who completed the study and those who did not |
Unclear risk |
Not reported |
| Glycaemic status measurement: provision of clear definition or description of glycaemic status |
Unclear risk |
HbA1c categories, IFG (additional analyses) |
| Glycaemic status measurement: valid and reliable method of glycaemic status measurement |
Low risk |
Yes |
| Glycaemic status measurement: continuous variables reported or appropriate cut points used |
Low risk |
HbA1: 6.0–6.49; IFG: not defined, probably FPG 5.6–6.9 |
| Glycaemic status measurement: same method and setting of measurement of the glycaemic status for all study participants |
Low risk |
Yes |
| Outcome measurement: clear definition of the outcome provided |
Low risk |
FPG ≥ 7.0; HbA1c ≥ 6.5; diabetes treatment |
| Outcome measurement: method of outcome measurement used valid & reliable |
Low risk |
Yes |
| Outcome measurement: same method & setting of outcome measurement for all study participants |
Low risk |
Yes |
| Study confounding: important confounders measured |
Low risk |
Yes |
| Study confounding: clear definitions of important confounders provided |
Low risk |
Yes |
| Study confounding: measurement of confounders valid & reliable |
Low risk |
Yes |
| Study confounding: same method & setting for measurements of confounders for all study participants |
Low risk |
Yes |
| Study confounding: appropriate methods used if missing confounder data imputed |
Unclear risk |
Not reported |
| Study confounding: important potential confounders accounted for in study design |
Low risk |
Yes |
| Study confounding: important potential confounders accounted for in the analysis |
Low risk |
Yes |
| Statistical analysis & reporting: sufficient presentation of data to assess adequacy of the analytic strategy |
Low risk |
Cumulative incidence, incidence rate, hazard ratio |
| Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study |
Low risk |
Cox proportional hazards models; additional models were run with updates variables (HbA1c and other variables were assessed every 5 years during follow‐up) |
