Skip to main content
. 2018 Oct 29;2018(10):CD012661. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012661.pub2

Charles 1997.

Name of study Paris Prospective Study
Inclusion criteria Longitudinal epidemiologic study of cardiovascular risk factors in male employees of the Paris police, born in France between 1917–28
Exclusion criteria No diabetes or cardiovascular disease
Notes Baseline data for individuals with IGT converting to T2DM (N = 32)
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Study participation: description of source population or population of interest Low risk Longitudinal epidemiologic study of cardiovascular risk factors in male employees of the Paris
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 and exclusion criteria described
Study attrition: description of attempts to collect information on participants who dropped out High risk Not reported
Study attrition: reasons for loss to follow‐up provided High risk Not reported
Study attrition: adequate description of participants lost to follow‐up High risk Not reported
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 Low risk IGT
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 IGT: 2‐h PG ≥ 7.8 to < 11.1 (WHO 1985)
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 2‐h PG ≥ 11.1 (WHO 1985); physician diagnosed diabetes
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 Unclear risk Cumulative incidence
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 (see below)
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
Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study Low risk Multivariate logistic regression (odds ratio for an increase of 1 SD in the population of participants with NGT or IGT)