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

Vijayakumar 2017.

Name of study None
Inclusion criteria Participants were 10–19 years of age at first examination without diabetes, and at least 1 follow‐up examination before the 40th birthday
Exclusion criteria History of possibly taking metformin at baseline
Notes Baseline data for adults (A)/children (C ) with HbA1c 5.7–6.4 (children: N = 62, adults: N = 168)
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 Unclear risk Not reported
Study attrition: reasons for loss to follow‐up provided Unclear risk Not reported
Study attrition: adequate description of participants lost to follow‐up Unclear risk Not reported
Study attrition: no important differences between participants who completed the study and those who did not Unclear risk Not reported
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 FPG 5.6–6.9; 2‐h PG 7.8–11.9; HbA1c 5.7–6.4
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; 2‐h PG ≥ 11.1; previous clinical diagnosis
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, incidence rate
Study confounding: clear definitions of important confounders provided Unclear risk Cumulative incidence, incidence rate
Study confounding: measurement of confounders valid & reliable Unclear risk Cumulative incidence, incidence rate
Study confounding: same method & setting for measurements of confounders for all study participants Unclear risk Cumulative incidence, incidence rate
Study confounding: appropriate methods used if missing confounder data imputed Unclear risk Cumulative incidence, incidence rate
Study confounding: important potential confounders accounted for in study design Unclear risk Cumulative incidence, incidence rate
Study confounding: important potential confounders accounted for in the analysis Unclear risk Cumulative incidence, incidence rate
Statistical analysis & reporting: sufficient presentation of data to assess adequacy of the analytic strategy Low risk Cumulative incidence, incidence rate
Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study Low risk ROC curves, increments in HbA1c and FPG or 2‐h PG to calculate 10‐year cumulative incidence