Name of study |
San Luis Valley Diabetes Study |
Inclusion criteria |
The San Luis Valley Diabetes Study determined the prevalence and incidence of NIDDM among Hispanic and non‐Hispanic white adults; sample without prior diabetes diagnosis aged 30–74 years; IGT at the initial visit |
Exclusion criteria |
Unavailability of complete data |
Notes |
Baseline data for IGT cohort converting to T2DM (N = 20) |
Risk of bias |
Bias |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
Study participation: description of source population or population of interest |
Low risk |
Yes |
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 |
Scarce data |
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 |
Yes |
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) |
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 |
Unclear risk |
Cumulative incidence |
Study confounding: measurement of confounders valid & reliable |
Unclear risk |
Cumulative incidence |
Study confounding: same method & setting for measurements of confounders for all study participants |
Unclear risk |
Cumulative incidence |
Study confounding: appropriate methods used if missing confounder data imputed |
Unclear risk |
Cumulative incidence |
Study confounding: important potential confounders accounted for in study design |
Unclear risk |
Cumulative incidence |
Study confounding: important potential confounders accounted for in the analysis |
Unclear risk |
Cumulative incidence |
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 |
Multiple logistic regression (baseline dietary risk factors to predict the development of diabetes; glucose levels as continuous variables) |