| Name of study |
Pizarra study, evaluating the prevalence of latent autoimmune diabetes of adults (LADA) in the context of the overall prevalence of diabetes in Southern Spain |
| Inclusion criteria |
People aged 18–65 years from Pizarra, Malaga |
| Exclusion criteria |
Institutionalised persons, pregnant women, severe clinical or psychological disorder |
| Notes |
Baseline data for final sample of follow‐up (N = 714); diabetes diagnosis according to capillary blood glucose levels > 6.1 mmol/L or post OGTT BG > 11.1 mmol/L |
| 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 |
Unclear risk |
Scarce data |
| 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 |
Unclear risk |
Yes |
| Glycaemic status measurement: continuous variables reported or appropriate cut points used |
Low risk |
IFG: BG 5.6–6.1 and 2‐h BG < 7.8; IGT: BG < 5.6 and 2‐h BG 7.8–11.1 |
| 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 |
BG > 6.1 or 2‐h BG > 11.1 |
| 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 |
Some covariates measured (see Appendix 16 and Appendix 17) |
| 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 |
Unclear risk |
Some covariates included (see Appendix 16 and Appendix 17) |
| Study confounding: important potential confounders accounted for in the analysis |
Unclear risk |
Some covariates analysed (see Appendix 16 and Appendix 17) |
| Statistical analysis & reporting: sufficient presentation of data to assess adequacy of the analytic strategy |
Low risk |
Cumulative incidence, incidence rate, relative risk |
| Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study |
Low risk |
Multivariate logistic regression |
