| Name of study |
None |
| Inclusion criteria |
South African Indians, mainly living in Durban (1984); survey to determine the prevalence of NIDDM among South African Indians; non‐pregnant participants > 15 years of age |
| Exclusion criteria |
Not reported |
| Notes |
Baseline data for responders (both baseline and follow‐up examination) (N = 563) |
| 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 |
Unclear risk |
Only inclusion criteria reported |
| 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 |
Low risk |
Yes |
| Study attrition: no important differences between participants who completed the study and those who did not |
Low risk |
Yes |
| 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: FPG < 7.8 and 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 |
FPG ≥ 7.8; 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 (to evaluate the effect of various predictor variables for type 2 diabetes) |
