| Name of study |
None |
| Inclusion criteria |
Participants with complete 3 year follow‐up and non‐pharmacological interventions |
| Exclusion criteria |
Participants aged 0–60 years, incomplete baseline data, diabetes at baseline |
| Notes |
Baseline data for i‐IFG/i‐IGTand IFG/IGT across age groups < 40 years + > 60 years (data indicate range across groups) (i‐IFG < 40 years: N = 51 and > 60 years: N = 278; i‐IGT < 40 years: N = 41 and > 60 years: N = 151; IFG/IGT: < 40 years: N = 34 and > 60 years: N = 175) |
| Risk of bias |
| Bias |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
| Study participation: description of source population or population of interest |
Low risk |
Permanent participants of Fujian province (China), part of the baseline survey from the REACTION study investigating the association between diabetes and cancer |
| 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 |
Unclear risk |
Not reported |
| Study attrition: reasons for loss to follow‐up provided |
Unclear risk |
Not reported |
| Study attrition: adequate description of participants lost to follow‐up |
Unclear 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 |
IFG, IGT, IFG/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 |
IFG: FPG 5.6–6.9 + 2‐h PG ≤ 7.8; IGT: FPG < 5.6 + 2‐h PG 7.8 to ≤ 11.0; IFG/IGT: FPG 5.6–6.9 + 2‐h PG 7.8 to ≤ 11.0 |
| 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; 2‐h PG ≥ 11.1; previously 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 |
Low risk |
Confounder adjustment for HOMA‐IR and HOMA‐B |
| 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 (HOMA‐IR, HOMA‐B) |
| 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 |
Stepwise multiple regression analysis (for HOMA‐IR or HOMA‐B) |
