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

Gautier 2010.

Name of study Data from an Epidemiological Study on the Insulin Resistance Syndrome (DESIR) cohort
Inclusion criteria Men and women aged 30–64 years recruited from volunteers who were offered periodic health examinations free of charge by the French Social Security at 10 health centres in western France
Exclusion criteria Diabetes at baseline, individuals with unknown diabetes status at the 9‐year examination
Notes No baseline data for cohort with intermediate hyperglycaemia
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Study participation: description of source population or population of interest Low risk Participants of the Data from an Epidemiological Study on the Insulin Resistance Syndrome (DESIR) cohort who had IFG at baseline
Study participation: description of glycaemic status at baseline Low risk Yes
Study participation: adequate description of sampling frame & recruitment Unclear risk Key characteristics unclear
Study participation: adequate description of period & recruitment place Unclear risk Time frame unclear
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 Unclear risk Scarce data
Study attrition: adequate description of participants lost to follow‐up Unclear 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 Low risk IFG
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
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; treatment for diabetes (at 1 of the 3‐yearly examinations)
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 Some confounders measured
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 Unclear 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 (see below)
Statistical analysis & reporting: sufficient presentation of data to assess adequacy of the analytic strategy Low risk Cumulative incidence (odds ratios for 9‐year incident diabetes per 1 SD change in waist circumference and weight in IFG)
Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study Low risk Logistic models (for increases in waist circumference and weight)