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 |