| Name of study |
Follow‐up of a cohort originally from the population‐based Västerbotten Intervention Program (VIP), a strategy to reach all middle‐aged persons individually at ages 40, 50 and 60 years, by inviting them to participate in systematic risk factor screening and individual counselling about healthy lifestyle habits; neuropathy study part of the VIP |
| Inclusion criteria |
All individuals who became 40, 50 or 60 years and who belonged to the list for a specific primary care centre or lived within the area for that centre |
| Exclusion criteria |
People not participating in the neuropathy study |
| Notes |
Baseline data for IGT cohort (N = 29) |
| 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 |
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 < 7.0 and 2‐h PG ≥ 7.8 to < 11.1 |
| 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 |
Yes |
| Outcome measurement: method of outcome measurement used valid & reliable |
Low risk |
FPG ≥ 7.0; 2‐h PG ≥ 11.1 |
| 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 |
ANOVA, regression analyses |
| Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study |
Unclear risk |
Cumulative incidence |
