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

Song 2015.

Name of study Korean Genome Epidemiology Study‐Kangwha Study (KoGES)
Inclusion criteria People aged ≥ 40 years
Exclusion criteria Missing key variables, history of stroke, angina pectoris or myocardial infarction, diabetes
Notes Baseline data for prediabetic cohort (men: N = 154; women: N = 167; total: N = 321); ranges for men ‐ women
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 Unclear risk Scarce data
Study attrition: no important differences between participants who completed the study and those who did not Unclear risk Responders had relatively low FPG and HbA1c at baseline compared to non‐responders
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 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; HbA1c ≥ 6.5; antihyperglycaemic medication
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 Yes
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
Statistical analysis & reporting: sufficient presentation of data to assess adequacy of the analytic strategy Unclear risk Cumulative incidence, relative risk
Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study Low risk Generalised linear models