Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Desarrollo de diabetes mellitus tipo 2 en pacientes con hiperglucemia intermedia

Contraer todo Desplegar todo

Referencias

Admiraal 2014 {published data only}

Admiraal WM, Holleman F, Snijder MB, Peters RJ, Brewster LM, Hoekstra JB, et al. Ethnic disparities in the association of impaired fasting glucose with the 10‐year cumulative incidence of type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice 2014;103(1):127‐32. [PUBMED: 24355200]CENTRAL
Agyemang C, van Valkengoed I, van den Born B J, Stronks K. Prevalence and determinants of prehypertension among African Surinamese, Hindustani Surinamese, and White Dutch in Amsterdam, the Netherlands: the SUNSET study. European Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation 2007;14(6):775‐81. CENTRAL
Bindraban NR, van Valkengoed IG, Mairuhu G, Holleman F, Hoekstra JB, Michels BP, et al. Prevalence of diabetes mellitus and the performance of a risk score among Hindustani Surinamese, African Surinamese and ethnic Dutch: a cross‐sectional population‐based study. BMC Public Health 2008;8:271. [PUBMED: 18673544]CENTRAL
Dekker LH, Nicolaou M, van der A Dl, Busschers WB, Brewster LM, Snijder MB, et al. Sex differences in the association between serum ferritin and fasting glucose in type 2 diabetes among South Asian Surinamese, African Surinamese, and ethnic Dutch: the population‐based SUNSET study. Diabetes Care 2013;36(4):965‐71. CENTRAL

Aekplakorn 2006 {published data only}

Aekplakorn W, Bunnag P, Woodward M, Sritara P, Cheepudomwit S, Yamwong S, et al. A risk score for predicting incident diabetes in the Thai population. Diabetes Care 2006;29(8):1872‐7. [PUBMED: 16873795]CENTRAL
Sritara P, Cheepudomwit S, Chapman N, Woodward M, Kositchaiwat C, Tunlayadechanont S, et al. Twelve‐year changes in vascular risk factors and their associations with mortality in a cohort of 3499 Thais: the electricity generating authority of Thailand study. International Journal of Epidemiology 2003;32:461‐8. [PUBMED: 12777437]CENTRAL

Ammari 1998 {published data only}

Ajlouni K, Jaddou H, Batieha A. Obesity in Jordan. International Journal of Obesity and Related Metabolic Disorders 1998;22(7):624‐8. [PUBMED: 9705020]CENTRAL
Ammari F, Batieha A, Jaddou PH, Okashi M, Ajlouni K. A natural history of impaired glucose tolerance in North Jordan. Practical Diabetes International 1998;15(5):139‐40. CENTRAL

Anjana 2015 {published data only}

Anjana RM, Shanthi Rani CS, Deepa M, Pradeepa R, Sudha V, Divya Nair H, et al. Incidence of diabetes and prediabetes and predictors of progression among Asian Indians: 10‐year follow‐up of the Chennai urban rural epidemiology study (CURES). Diabetes Care 2015;38(8):1441‐8. [PUBMED: 25906786]CENTRAL
Deepa M, Pradeepa R, Rema M, Mohan A, Deepa R, Shanthirani S, et al. The Chennai urban rural epidemiology study (CURES) ‐ study design and methodology (urban component) (CURES‐I). Journal of the Association of Physicians of India 2003;51:863‐70. [PUBMED: 14710970]CENTRAL
Mohan D, Raj D, Shanthirani CS, Datta M, Unwin NC, Kapur A, et al. Awareness and knowledge of diabetes in Chennai ‐ the Chennai urban rural epidemiology study [CURES‐9]. Journal of the Association of Physicians of India 2005;53:283‐7. CENTRAL
Mohan V, Deepa M, Farooq S, Datta M, Deepa R. Prevalence, awareness and control of hypertension in Chennai ‐ the Chennai urban rural epidemiology study (CURES‐52). Journal of the Association of Physicians of India 2007;55:326‐32. CENTRAL
Mohan V, Deepa R, Pradeepa R, Vimaleswaran KS, Mohan A, Velmurugan K, et al. Association of low adiponectin levels with the metabolic syndrome ‐ the Chennai urban rural epidemiology study (CURES‐4). Metabolism 2005;54(4):476‐81. CENTRAL
Mohan V, Sandeep S, Deepa M, Gokulakrishnan K, Datta M, Deepa R. A diabetes risk score helps identify metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular risk in Indians ‐ the Chennai urban rural epidemiology study (CURES‐38). Diabetes, Obesity & Metabolism 2007;9(3):337‐43. CENTRAL
Radhika G, Sathya RM, Sudha V, Ganesan A, Mohan V. Dietary salt intake and hypertension in an urban south Indian population ‐ [CURES ‐ 53]. Journal of the Association of Physicians of India 2007;55:405‐11. CENTRAL

Bae 2011 {published data only}

Bae JC, Rhee EJ, Lee WY, Park SE, Park CY, Oh KW, et al. Combined effect of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and impaired fasting glucose on the development of type 2 diabetes: a 4‐year retrospective longitudinal study. Diabetes Care 2011;34(3):727‐9. [PUBMED: 21278140]CENTRAL
Bae JC, Rhee EJ, Lee WY, Park SE, Park CY, Oh KW, et al. Optimal range of HbA1c for the prediction of future diabetes: a 4‐year longitudinal study. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice 2011;93(2):255‐9. [PUBMED: 21676480]CENTRAL

Baena‐Diez 2011 {published data only}

Baena‐Diez JM, Bermudez‐Chillida N, Mundet X, del Val‐Garcia JL, Munoz MA, Schroder H. Impaired fasting glucose and risk of diabetes mellitus at 10 years. Cohort study. Medicina Clinica 2011;136(9):382‐5. [PUBMED: 21300382]CENTRAL

Bai 1999 {published data only}

Bai PV, Krishnaswami CV, Chellamariappan M. Prevalence and incidence of type‐2 diabetes and impaired glucose tolerance in a selected Indian urban population. Journal of the Association of Physicians of India 1999;47(11):1060‐4. [PUBMED: 10862313]CENTRAL

Bergman 2016 {published data only}

Bergman M, Chetrit A, Roth J, Jagannathan R, Sevick M, Dankner R. One‐hour post‐load plasma glucose level during the OGTT predicts dysglycemia: observations from the 24year follow‐up of the Israel study of glucose intolerance, obesity and hypertension. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice 2016;120:221‐8. [PUBMED: 27596059]CENTRAL
Dankner R, Abdul‐Ghani MA, Gerber Y, Chetrit A, Wainstein J, Raz I. Predicting the 20‐year diabetes incidence rate. Diabetes/metabolism Research and Reviews 2007;23(7):551‐8. [PUBMED: 17315136]CENTRAL
Modan M, Halkin H, Karasik A, Lusky A. Effectiveness of glycosylated hemoglobin, fasting plasma glucose, and a single post load plasma glucose level in population screening for glucose intolerance. American Journal of Epidemiology 1984;119(3):431‐44. [PUBMED: 6702817]CENTRAL
Modan M, Karasik A, Halkin H, Fuchs Z, Lusky A, Shitrit A, et al. Effect of past and concurrent body mass index on prevalence of glucose intolerance and type 2 (non‐insulin‐dependent) diabetes and on insulin response. Diabetologia 1986;29(2):82‐9. [PUBMED: 3516770]CENTRAL

Bonora 2011 {published data only}

Bonora E, Kiechl S, Mayr A, Zoppini G, Targher G, Bonadonna RC, et al. High‐normal HbA1c is a strong predictor of type 2 diabetes in the general population. Diabetes Care 2011;34(4):1038‐40. [PUBMED: 21307378]CENTRAL
Bonora E, Kiechl S, Willeit J, Oberhollenzer F, Egger G, Meigs JB, et al. Insulin resistance as estimated by homeostasis model assessment predicts incident symptomatic cardiovascular disease in Caucasian subjects from the general population: the Bruneck study. Diabetes Care 2007;30(2):318‐24. CENTRAL
Bonora E, Kiechl S, Willeit J, Oberhollenzer F, Egger G, Meigs JB, et al. Population‐based incidence rates and risk factors for type 2 diabetes in white individuals: the Bruneck study. Diabetes 2004;53(7):1782‐9. [PUBMED: 15220202]CENTRAL

Cederberg 2010 {published data only}

Cederberg H, Saukkonen T, Laakso M, Jokelainen J, Harkonen P, Timonen M, et al. Postchallenge glucose, A1C, and fasting glucose as predictors of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease: a 10‐year prospective cohort study. Diabetes Care 2010;33(9):2077‐83. [PUBMED: 20573752]CENTRAL
Rajala U, Laakso M, Paivansalo M, Pelkonen O, Suramo I, Keinanen‐Kiukaanniemi S. Low insulin sensitivity measured by both quantitative insulin sensitivity check index and homeostasis model assessment method as a risk factor of increased intima‐media thickness of the carotid artery. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism 2002;87(11):5092‐7. [PUBMED: 12414877]CENTRAL

Chamnan 2011 {published data only}

Chamnan P, Simmons RK, Forouhi NG, Luben RN, Khaw KT, Wareham NJ, et al. Incidence of type 2 diabetes using proposed HbA1c diagnostic criteria in the European prospective investigation of Cancer‐Norfolk cohort: implications for preventive strategies. Diabetes Care 2011;34(4):950‐6. [PUBMED: 20622160]CENTRAL
Day N, Oakes S, Luben R, Khaw KT, Bingham S, Welch A, et al. EPIC‐Norfolk: study design and characteristics of the cohort. European prospective investigation of cancer. British Journal of Cancer 1999;80(Suppl 1):95‐103. [PUBMED: 10466767]CENTRAL
Khaw KT, Wareham N, Luben R, Bingham S, Oakes S, Welch A, et al. Glycated haemoglobin, diabetes, and mortality in men in Norfolk cohort of European prospective investigation of cancer and nutrition (EPIC‐Norfolk). BMJ 2001;322(7277):15‐8. [PUBMED: 11141143]CENTRAL

Charles 1997 {published data only}

Balkau B, Forhan A, Eschwege E. Two hour plasma glucose is not unequivocally predictive for early death in men with impaired fasting glucose: more results from the Paris prospective study. Diabetologia 2002;45(9):1224‐30. CENTRAL
Charles MA, Eschwege E, Thibult N, Claude JR, Warnet JM, Rosselin GE, et al. The role of non‐esterified fatty acids in the deterioration of glucose tolerance in Caucasian subjects: results of the Paris prospective study. Diabetologia 1997;40(9):1101‐6. [PUBMED: 9300248]CENTRAL
Charles MA, Fontbonne A, Thibult N, Warnet JM, Rosselin GE, Eschwege E. Risk factors for NIDDM in white population. Paris prospective study. Diabetes 1991;40(7):796‐9. [PUBMED: 2060716]CENTRAL
Eschwege E, Charles MA, Simon D, Thibult N, Balkau B. From policemen to policies: what is the future for 2‐h glucose? The Kelly West lecture, 2000. Diabetes Care 2001;24(11):1945‐50. CENTRAL
Eschwege E, Charles MA, Simon D, Thibult N, Balkau B. Reproducibility of the diagnosis of diabetes over a 30‐month follow‐up: the Paris prospective study. Diabetes Care 2001;24(11):1941‐4. [PUBMED: 11679461]CENTRAL

Chen 2003 {published data only}

Chen KT, Chen CJ, Gregg EW, Imperatore G, Narayan KMV. Impaired fasting glucose and risk of diabetes in Taiwan: follow‐up over 3 years. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice 2003;60(3):177‐82. [PUBMED: 12757990]CENTRAL
Chen KT, Chen CJ, Gregg EW, Williamson DF, Narayan KM. High prevalence of impaired fasting glucose and type 2 diabetes mellitus in Penghu Islets, Taiwan: evidence of a rapidly emerging epidemic?. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice 1999;44(1):59‐69. [PUBMED: 10414941]CENTRAL

Chen 2017 {published data only}

Chen G, Lin L, Chen L, Li L, Huang H, Wang W, et al. Comparison of insulin resistance and beta‐cell dysfunction between the young and the elderly in normal glucose tolerance and prediabetes population: a prospective study. Hormone and Metabolic Research 2017;49(2):135‐41. [DOI: 10.1055/s‐0042‐111325; PUBMED: 27459384]CENTRAL

Coronado‐Malagon 2009 {published data only}

Coronado‐Malagon M, Gomez‐Vargas JI, Espinoza‐Peralta D, Arce‐Salinas A. Progression toward type‐2 diabetes mellitus among Mexican pre‐diabetics. Assessment of a cohort. Gaceta Medica De Mexico 2009;145(4):269‐72. [PUBMED: 20073428]CENTRAL

Cugati 2007 {published data only}

Cugati S, Wang JJ, Rochtchina E, Mitchell P. Ten‐year incidence of diabetes in older Australians: the Blue Mountains eye study. Medical Journal of Australia 2007;186(3):131‐5. [PUBMED: 17309402]CENTRAL
Mitchell P, Smith W, Wang JJ, Cumming RG, Leeder SR, Burnett L. Diabetes in an older Australian population. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice 1998;41(3):177‐84. [PUBMED: 9829346]CENTRAL

De Abreu 2015 {published data only}

De Abreu LLF, Holloway KL, Mohebbi M, Sajjad MA, Kotowicz MA, Pasco JA. All‐cause mortality risk in Australian women with impaired fasting glucose and diabetes. Journal of Diabetes Research 2017;2017:2042980. [PUBMED: 28698884]CENTRAL
Pasco JA, Nicholson GC, Kotowicz MA. Cohort profile: Geelong osteoporosis study. International Journal of Epidemiology 2012;41(6):1565‐75. [PUBMED: 23283714]CENTRAL
de Abreu L, Holloway KL, Kotowicz MA, Pasco JA. Dysglycaemia and other predictors for progression or regression from impaired fasting glucose to diabetes or normoglycaemia. Journal of Diabetes Research 2015;2015:373762. [DOI: 10.1155/2015/373762; PUBMED: 26273669]CENTRAL

Den Biggelaar 2016 {published data only}

Den Biggelaar LJ, Sep SJ, Eussen SJ, Mari A, Ferrannini E, van Greevenbroek MM, et al. Discriminatory ability of simple OGTT‐based beta cell function indices for prediction of prediabetes and type 2 diabetes: the CODAM study. Diabetologia 2016;60(3):432‐41. [PUBMED: 27933333]CENTRAL
Kruijshoop M, Feskens EJ, Blaak EE, de Bruin TW. Validation of capillary glucose measurements to detect glucose intolerance or type 2 diabetes mellitus in the general population. Clinica Chimica Acta 2004;341(1‐2):33‐40. [PUBMED: 14967156]CENTRAL

Derakhshan 2016 {published data only}

Aghaei Meybodi HR, Azizi F. Changes in body weight and fat distribution; risk factors for abnormal glucose homeostasis? Tehran lipid and glucose study. Iranian Journal of Diabetes and Lipid Disorders 2009;8(1):1‐12. CENTRAL
Bozorgmanesh M, Hadaegh F, Azizi F. A simple clinical model predicted diabetes progression among prediabetic individuals. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice 2012;97(2):e34‐6. [PUBMED: 22647753]CENTRAL
Derakhshan A, Bagherzadeh‐Khiabani F, Arshi B, Ramezankhani A, Azizi F, Hadaegh F. Different combinations of glucose tolerance and blood pressure status and incident diabetes, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease. Journal of the American Heart Association 2016;5(8):pii: e003917. [DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.116.003917; PUBMED: 27543801]CENTRAL
Derakhshan A, Sardarinia M, Khalili D, Momenan AA, Azizi F, Hadaegh F. Sex specific incidence rates of type 2 diabetes and its risk factors over 9 years of follow‐up: Tehran lipid and glucose study. PLOS ONE 2014;9(7):e102563. [PUBMED: 25029368]CENTRAL
Derakhshan A, Tohidi M, Arshi B, Khalili D, Azizi F, Hadaegh F. Relationship of hyperinsulinaemia, insulin resistance and beta‐cell dysfunction with incident diabetes and pre‐diabetes: the Tehran lipid and glucose study. Diabetic Medicine 2015;32(1):24‐32. [PUBMED: 25131451]CENTRAL
Hadaegh F, Bozorgmanesh MR, Ghasemi A, Harati H, Saadat N, Azizi F. High prevalence of undiagnosed diabetes and abnormal glucose tolerance in the Iranian urban population: Tehran lipid and glucose study. BMC Public Health 2008;8:176. CENTRAL
Hadaegh F, Derakhshan A, Zafari N, Khalili D, Mirbolouk M, Saadat N, et al. Pre‐diabetes tsunami: incidence rates and risk factors of pre‐diabetes and its different phenotypes over 9 years of follow‐up. Diabetic Medicine 2017;34(1):69‐78. [PUBMED: 26606421]CENTRAL
Hadaegh F, Ghasemi Ar, Padyab M, Tohidi M, Azizi F. The metabolic syndrome and incident diabetes: assessment of alternative definitions of the metabolic syndrome in an Iranian urban population. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice 2008;80(2):328‐34. [PUBMED: 18282630]CENTRAL
Harati H, Hadaegh F, Saadat N, Azizi F. Population‐based incidence of type 2 diabetes and its associated risk factors: results from a six‐year cohort study in Iran. BMC Public Health 2009;9:186. [DOI: 10.1186/1471‐2458‐9‐186; PUBMED: 19531260]CENTRAL
Harati H, Hadaegh F, Tohidi M, Azizi F. Impaired fasting glucose cutoff value of 5.6 mmol/l combined with other cardiovascular risk markers is a better predictor for incident type 2 diabetes than the 6.1 mmol/l value: Tehran lipid and glucose study. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice 2009;85(1):90‐5. [PUBMED: 19414206]CENTRAL

Dowse 1991 {published data only}

Dowse GK, Zimmet PZ, Collins VR. Insulin levels and the natural history of glucose intolerance in Nauruans. Diabetes 1996;45(10):1367‐72. CENTRAL
Dowse GK, Zimmet PZ, Collins VR. Insulin levels and the natural history of glucose intolerance in Nauruans. Diabetes 1996;45(10):1367‐72. [PUBMED: 8826973]CENTRAL
Dowse GK, Zimmet PZ, Finch CF, Collins VR. Decline in incidence of epidemic glucose intolerance in Nauruans: implications for the "thrifty genotype". American Journal of Epidemiology 1991;133(11):1093‐104. [PUBMED: 2035513]CENTRAL
King H, Zimmet P, Raper LR, Balkau B. The natural history of impaired glucose tolerance in the Micronesian population of Nauru: a six‐year follow‐up study. Diabetologia 1984;26(1):39‐43. [PUBMED: 6706044]CENTRAL
Sicree RA, Zimmet PZ, King HOM, Coventry JS. Plasma‐insulin response among Nauruans ‐ prediction of deterioration in glucose‐tolerance over 6‐yr. Diabetes 1987;36(2):179‐86. [PUBMED: 3542644]CENTRAL

Ferrannini 2009 {published data only}

Ferrannini E, Massari M, Nannipieri M, Natali A, Lopez Ridaura R, Gonzales‐Villalpando C. Plasma glucose levels as predictors of diabetes: the Mexico City diabetes study. Diabetologia 2009;52(5):818‐24. [PUBMED: 19224196]CENTRAL
Ferrannini E, Nannipieri M, Williams K, Gonzales C, Haffner SM, Stern MP. Mode of onset of type 2 diabetes from normal or impaired glucose tolerance. Diabetes 2004;53(1):160‐5. [PUBMED: 14693710]CENTRAL
Haffner SM, Gonzalez C, Mykkanen L, Stern M. Total immunoreactive proinsulin, immunoreactive insulin and specific insulin in relation to conversion to NIDDM: the Mexico City diabetes study. Diabetologia 1997;40(7):830‐7. [PUBMED: 9243105]CENTRAL
Haffner SM, Kennedy E, Gonzalez C, Stern MP, Miettinen H. A prospective analysis of the HOMA model. The Mexico City diabetes study. Diabetes Care 1996;19(10):1138‐41. [PUBMED: 8886564]CENTRAL
Nannipieri M, Gonzales C, Baldi S, Posadas R, Williams K, Haffner SM, et al. Liver enzymes, the metabolic syndrome, and incident diabetes: the Mexico City diabetes study. Diabetes Care 2005;28(7):1757‐62. [PUBMED: 15983331]CENTRAL

Filippatos 2016 {published data only}

Filippatos TD, Panagiotakos DB, Georgousopoulou EN, Pitaraki E, Kouli GM, Chrysohoou C, et al. Mediterranean diet and 10‐year (2002‐2012) incidence of diabetes and cardiovascular disease in participants with prediabetes: the ATTICA study. Review of Diabetic Studies 2016;13(4):226‐35. [PUBMED: 28278309]CENTRAL
Koloverou E, Panagiotakos DB, Georgousopoulou EN, Grekas A, Christou A, Chatzigeorgiou M, et al. Dietary patterns and 10‐year (2002‐2012) incidence of type 2 diabetes: results from the ATTICA cohort study. Review of Diabetic Studies 2016;13(4):246‐56. [PUBMED: 28394951]CENTRAL
Koloverou E, Panagiotakos DB, Pitsavos C, Chrysohoou C, Georgousopoulou EN, Grekas A, et al. Adherence to Mediterranean diet and 10‐year incidence (2002‐2012) of diabetes: correlations with inflammatory and oxidative stress biomarkers in the ATTICA cohort study. Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews 2016;32(1):73‐81. [PUBMED: 26104243]CENTRAL
Pitsavos C, Panagiotakos DB, Chrysohoou C, Stefanadis C. Epidemiology of cardiovascular risk factors in Greece: aims, design and baseline characteristics of the ATTICA study. BMC Public Health 2003;3:32. [PUBMED: 14567760]CENTRAL

Forouhi 2007 {published data only}

Forouhi NG, Luan J, Hennings S, Wareham NJ. Incidence of type 2 diabetes in England and its association with baseline impaired fasting glucose: the Ely study 1990‐2000. Diabetic Medicine 2007;24(2):200‐7. [PUBMED: 17257284]CENTRAL
Simmons RK, Rahman M, Jakes RW, Yuyun MF, Niggebrugge AR, Hennings SH, et al. Effect of population screening for type 2 diabetes on mortality: long‐term follow‐up of the Ely cohort. Diabetologia 2011;54:312‐9. [PUBMED: 20978739]CENTRAL
Wareham NJ, Byrne CD, Williams R, Day NE, Hales CN. Fasting proinsulin concentrations predict the development of type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 1999;22(2):262‐70. [PUBMED: 10333943]CENTRAL
Williams DR, Wareham NJ, Brown DC, Byrne CD, Clark PM, Cox BD, et al. Undiagnosed glucose intolerance in the community: the Isle of Ely diabetes project. Diabetic Medicine 1995;12:30‐5. [PUBMED: 7712700]CENTRAL

Garcia 2016 {published data only}

Garcia L, Lee A, Al Hazzouri AZ, Neuhaus JM, Moyce S, Aiello A, et al. Influence of neighbourhood socioeconomic position on the transition to type II diabetes in older Mexican Americans: the Sacramento area longitudinal study on aging. BMJ Open 2016;6(8):e010905. [PUBMED: 27515749]CENTRAL

Gautier 2010 {published data only}

Balkau B, Lange C, Fezeu L, Tichet J, de Lauzon‐Guillain B, Czernichow S, et al. Predicting diabetes: clinical, biological, and genetic approaches: data from the epidemiological study on the insulin resistance syndrome (DESIR). Diabetes Care 2008;31(10):2056‐61. [PUBMED: 18689695]CENTRAL
Droumaguet C, Balkau B, Simon D, Caces E, Tichet J, Charles MA, et al. Use of HbA1c in predicting progression to diabetes in French men and women: data from an epidemiological study on the insulin resistance syndrome (DESIR). Diabetes Care 2006;29(7):1619‐25. [PUBMED: 16801588]CENTRAL
Gautier A, Roussel R, Ducluzeau PH, Lange C, Vol S, Balkau B, et al. Increases in waist circumference and weight as predictors of type 2 diabetes in individuals with impaired fasting glucose: influence of baseline BMI. Data from the DESIR study. Diabetes Care 2010;33(8):1850‐2. [PUBMED: 20484131]CENTRAL
Soulimane S, Simon D, Shaw J, Witte D, Zimmet P, Vol S, et al. HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose and the prediction of diabetes: Inter99, AusDiab and D.E.S.I.R. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice 2012;96(3):392‐9. [PUBMED: 21741107]CENTRAL
Soulimane S, Simon D, Shaw JE, Zimmet PZ, Vol S, Vistisen D, et al. Comparing incident diabetes as defined by fasting plasma glucose or by HbA(1c). The AusDiab, Inter99 and DESIR studies. Diabetic Medicine 2011;28(11):1311‐8. [PUBMED: 21824186]CENTRAL

Gomez‐Arbelaez 2015 {published data only}

Gomez‐Arbelaez D, Alvarado‐Jurado L, Ayala‐Castillo M, Forero‐Naranjo L, Camacho PA, Lopez‐Jaramillo P. Evaluation of the Finnish diabetes risk score to predict type 2 diabetes mellitus in a Colombian population: a longitudinal observational study. World Journal of Diabetes 2015;6(17):1337‐44. [PUBMED: 26675051]CENTRAL

Guerrero‐Romero 2006 {published data only}

Guerrero‐Romer F, Rodriguez‐Moran M, Gonzalez‐Ortiz M, Martinez‐Abundis E. Insulin action and secretion in healthy Hispanic‐Mexican first‐degree relatives of subjects with type 2 diabetes. Journal of Endocrinological Investigation 2001;24:580‐6. [PUBMED: 11686540]CENTRAL
Guerrero‐Romero F, Rodriguez‐Moran M. Assessing progression to impaired glucose tolerance and type 2 diabetes mellitus. European Journal of Clinical Investigation 2006;36(11):796‐802. [PUBMED: 17032347]CENTRAL
Rodriguez‐Moran M, Guerrero‐Romero F. Hyperinsulinemia and abdominal obesity are more prevalent in non‐diabetic subjects with family history of type 2 diabetes. Archives of Medical Research 2000;31:399‐403. [PUBMED: 11068083]CENTRAL

Han 2017 {published data only}

Choi SH, Kim TH, Lim S, Park KS, Jang HC, Cho NH. Hemoglobin A1c as a diagnostic tool for diabetes screening and new‐onset diabetes prediction: a 6‐year community‐based prospective study. Diabetes Care 2011;34(4):944‐9. [PUBMED: 21335372]CENTRAL
Han SJ, Kim HJ, Kim DJ, Lee KW, Cho NH. Incidence and predictors of type 2 diabetes among Koreans: a 12‐year follow up of the Korean genome and epidemiology study. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice 2017;123:173‐80. [PUBMED: 28043048]CENTRAL
Jung DH, Byun YS, Kwon YJ, Kim GS. Microalbuminuria as a simple predictor of incident diabetes over 8 years in the Korean genome and epidemiology study (KoGES). Scientific Reports 2017;7(1):15445. [PUBMED: 29133894]CENTRAL
Jung JY, Oh CM, Ryoo JH, Choi JM, Choi YJ, Ham W T, et al. The influence of prehypertension, hypertension, and glycated hemoglobin on the development of type 2 diabetes mellitus in prediabetes: the Korean genome and epidemiology study (KoGES). Endocrine 2018;59(3):593‐601. [PUBMED: 29380232]CENTRAL
Keun Park S, Ryoo JH, Oh CM, Choi JM, Choi YJ, Ok Lee K, et al. The risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus according to 2‐hour plasma glucose level: the Korean genome and epidemiology study (KoGES). Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice 2017 Aug 9 [Epub ahead of print]. [DOI: 10.1016/j.diabres.2017.08.002; PUBMED: 28951335]CENTRAL
Lim NK, Park SH, Choi SJ, Lee KS, Park HY. A risk score for predicting the incidence of type 2 diabetes in a middle‐aged Korean cohort: the Korean genome and epidemiology study. Circulation Journal 2012;76(8):1904‐10. [PUBMED: 22640983]CENTRAL

Hanley 2005 {published data only}

Festa A, D'Agostino R, Hanley AJ, Karter AJ, Saad MF, Haffner SM. Differences in insulin resistance in nondiabetic subjects with isolated impaired glucose tolerance or isolated impaired fasting glucose. Diabetes 2004;53(6):1549‐55. CENTRAL
Festa A, D'Agostino R, Rich SS, Jenny NS, Tracy RP, Haffner SM. Promoter (4G/5G) plasminogen activator inhibitor‐1 genotype and plasminogen activator inhibitor‐1 levels in blacks, Hispanics, and non‐Hispanic whites: the insulin resistance atherosclerosis study. Circulation 2003;107(19):2422‐7. CENTRAL
Haffner SM, D'Agostino R, Goff D, Howard B, Festa A, Saad MF, et al. LDL size in African Americans, Hispanics, and non‐Hispanic whites : the insulin resistance atherosclerosis study. Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology 1999;19(9):2234‐40. CENTRAL
Haffner SM, D'Agostino R, Saad MF, Rewers M, Mykkanen L, Selby J, et al. Increased insulin resistance and insulin secretion in nondiabetic African‐Americans and Hispanics compared with non‐Hispanic whites. The insulin resistance atherosclerosis study. Diabetes 1996;45(6):742‐8. [PUBMED: 8635647]CENTRAL
Haffner SM, Howard G, Mayer E, Bergman RN, Savage PJ, Rewers M, et al. Insulin sensitivity and acute insulin response in African‐Americans, non‐Hispanic whites, and Hispanics with NIDDM: the insulin resistance atherosclerosis study. Diabetes 1997;46(1):63‐9. CENTRAL
Hanley AJ, D'Agostino RB, Wagenknecht LE, Saad MF, Savage PJ, Bergman R, et al. Increased proinsulin levels and decreased acute insulin response independently predict the incidence of type 2 diabetes in the insulin resistance atherosclerosis study. Diabetes 2002;51(4):1263‐70. [PUBMED: 11916954]CENTRAL
Hanley AJ, Karter AJ, Williams K, Festa A, D'Agostino RB, Wagenknecht LE, et al. Prediction of type 2 diabetes mellitus with alternative definitions of the metabolic syndrome: the insulin resistance atherosclerosis study. Circulation 2005;112(24):3713‐21. [PUBMED: 16344402]CENTRAL
Howard BV, Mayer‐Davis EJ, Goff D, Zaccaro DJ, Laws A, Robbins DC, et al. Relationships between insulin resistance and lipoproteins in nondiabetic African Americans, Hispanics, and non‐Hispanic whites: the insulin resistance atherosclerosis study. Metabolism 1998;47(10):1174‐9. CENTRAL
Karter AJ, Mayer‐Davis EJ, Selby JV, D'Agostino RB, Haffner SM, Sholinsky P, et al. Insulin sensitivity and abdominal obesity in African‐American, Hispanic, and non‐Hispanic white men and women. The insulin resistance and atherosclerosis study. Diabetes 1996;45(11):1547‐55. CENTRAL
Mayer‐Davis EJ, Levin S, Bergman RN, D'Agostino RB, Karter AJ, Saad MF, et al. Insulin secretion, obesity, and potential behavioral influences: results from the insulin resistance atherosclerosis study (IRAS). Diabetes/metabolism Research and Reviews 2001;17(2):137‐45. CENTRAL
Sanchez‐Lugo L, Mayer‐Davis EJ, Howard G, Selby JV, Ayad MF, Rewers M, et al. Insulin sensitivity and intake of vitamins E and C in African American, Hispanic, and non‐Hispanic white men and women: the insulin resistance and atherosclerosis study (IRAS). American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 1997;66(5):1224‐31. CENTRAL
Wagenknecht LE, Mayer EJ, Rewers M, Haffner S, Selby J, Borok GM, et al. The insulin resistance atherosclerosis study (IRAS) objectives, design, and recruitment results. Annals of Epidemiology 1995;5(6):464‐72. [PUBMED: 8680609]CENTRAL

Heianza 2012 {published data only}

Heianza Y, Arase Y, Fujihara K, Hsieh SD, Saito K, Tsuji H, et al. Longitudinal trajectories of HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose levels during the development of type 2 diabetes: the Toranomon hospital health management center study 7 (TOPICS 7). Diabetes Care 2012;35(5):1050‐2. [PUBMED: 22456865]CENTRAL
Heianza Y, Arase Y, Fujihara K, Tsuji H, Saito K, Hsieh SD, et al. High normal HbA(1c) levels were associated with impaired insulin secretion without escalating insulin resistance in Japanese individuals: the Toranomon hospital health management center study 8 (TOPICS 8). Diabetic Medicine 2012;29(10):1285‐90. CENTRAL
Heianza Y, Arase Y, Fujihara K, Tsuji H, Saito K, Hsieh SD, et al. Screening for pre‐diabetes to predict future diabetes using various cut‐off points for HbA(1c) and impaired fasting glucose: the Toranomon hospital health management center study 4 (TOPICS 4). Diabetic Medicine 2012;29(9):e279‐85. [PUBMED: 22510023]CENTRAL
Heianza Y, Arase Y, Hsieh SD, Saito K, Tsuji H, Kodama S, et al. Development of a new scoring system for predicting the 5 year incidence of type 2 diabetes in Japan: the Toranomon hospital health management center study 6 (TOPICS 6). Diabetologia 2012;55(12):3213‐23. [PUBMED: 22955996]CENTRAL
Heianza Y, Hara S, Arase Y, Saito K, Fujiwara K, Tsuji H, et al. HbA1c 5.7‐6.4% and impaired fasting plasma glucose for diagnosis of prediabetes and risk of progression to diabetes in Japan (TOPICS 3): a longitudinal cohort study. Lancet 2011;378(9786):147‐55. [MEDLINE: 21705064]CENTRAL
Heianza Y, Hara S, Arase Y, Saito K, Totsuka K, Tsuji H, et al. Low serum potassium levels and risk of type 2 diabetes: the Toranomon hospital health management center study 1 (TOPICS 1). Diabetologia 2011;54(4):762‐6. [PUBMED: 21212932]CENTRAL

Inoue 1996 {published data only}

Inoue I, Takahashi K, Katayama S, Harada Y, Negishi K, Ishii J, et al. A higher proinsulin response to glucose loading predicts deteriorating fasting plasma glucose and worsening to diabetes in subjects with impaired glucose tolerance. Diabetoc Medicine 1996;13(4):330‐6. [PUBMED: 9162608]CENTRAL

Janghorbani 2015 {published data only}

Amini M, Janghorbani M. Comparison of metabolic syndrome with glucose measurement for prediction of type 2 diabetes: the Isfahan diabetes prevention study. Diabetes & Metabolic Syndrome: Clinical Research & Reviews 2009;3(2):84‐9. CENTRAL
Haghighatdoost F, Amini M, Feizi A, Iraj B. Are body mass index and waist circumference significant predictors of diabetes and prediabetes risk: results from a population based cohort study. World Journal of Diabetes 2017;8(7):365‐73. [PUBMED: 28751960]CENTRAL
Janghorbani M, Amini M. Normal fasting plasma glucose and risk of prediabetes and type 2 diabetes: the Isfahan diabetes prevention study. Review of Diabetic Studies 2011;8(4):490‐8. [PUBMED: 22580730]CENTRAL
Janghorbani M, Amini M. Progression from optimal blood glucose and pre‐diabetes to type 2 diabetes in a high risk population with or without hypertension in Isfahan, Iran. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice 2015;108(3):414‐22. [PUBMED: 25814432]CENTRAL

Jaruratanasirikul 2016 {published data only}

Jaruratanasirikul S, Thammaratchuchai S, Puwanant M, Mo‐Suwan L, Sriplung H. Progression from impaired glucose tolerance to type 2 diabetes in obese children and adolescents: a 3‐6‐year cohort study in southern Thailand. Journal of Pediatric Endocrinology & Metabolism 2016;29(11):1267‐75. [PUBMED: 27740930]CENTRAL

Jeong 2010 {published data only}

Jeong JY, Kim JG, Kim BW, Moon SS, Kim HS, Park KG, et al. Trend analysis of diabetic prevalence and incidence in a rural area of South Korea between 2003‐2008. Journal of Diabetes Investigation 2010;1(5):184‐90. [PUBMED: 24843430]CENTRAL

Jiamjarasrangsi 2008a {published data only}

Jiamjarasrangsi W, Aekplakorn W. Incidence and predictors of type 2 diabetes among professional and office workers in Bangkok, Thailand. Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand 2005;88(12):1896‐904. [PUBMED: 16518992]CENTRAL
Jiamjarasrangsi W, Sangwatanaroj S, Lohsoonthorn V, Lertmaharit S. Increased alanine aminotransferase level and future risk of type 2 diabetes and impaired fasting glucose among the employees in a university hospital in Thailand. Diabetes & Metabolism 2008;34(3):283‐9. [PUBMED: 18486512]CENTRAL

Kim 2005 {published data only}

Kim DJ, Cho NH, Noh JH, Kim HJ, Choi YH, Jung JH, et al. Fasting plasma glucose cutoff value for the prediction of future diabetes development: a study of middle‐aged Koreans in a health promotion center. Journal of Korean Medical Science 2005;20(4):562‐5. [PUBMED: 16100444]CENTRAL
Kim DJ, Cho NH, Noh JH, Lee MS, Lee MK, Kim KW. Lack of excess maternal transmission of type 2 diabetes in a Korean population. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice 2004;65(2):117‐24. [PUBMED: 15223223]CENTRAL

Kim 2008 {published data only}

Kim SH, Shim WS, Kim EA, Kim EJ, Lee SH, Hong SB, et al. The effect of lowering the threshold for diagnosis of impaired fasting glucose. Yonsei Medical Journal 2008;49(2):217‐23. [PUBMED: 18452257]CENTRAL

Kim 2014 {published data only}

Kim YA, Ku EJ, Khang AR, Hong ES, Kim KM, Moon JH, et al. Role of various indices derived from an oral glucose tolerance test in the prediction of conversion from prediabetes to type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice 2014;106(2):351‐9. [PUBMED: 25245975]CENTRAL

Kim 2016a {published data only}

Kim CH, Kim HK, Kim EH, Bae SJ, Choe J, Park JY. Risk of progression to diabetes from prediabetes defined by HbA1c or fasting plasma glucose criteria in Koreans. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice 2016;118:105‐11. [PUBMED: 27368062]CENTRAL

Kleber 2010 {published data only}

Kleber M, Lass N, Papcke S, Wabitsch M, Reinehr T. One‐year follow‐up of untreated obese white children and adolescents with impaired glucose tolerance: high conversion rate to normal glucose tolerance. Diabetic Medicine 2010;27(5):516‐21. [PUBMED: 20536946]CENTRAL

Kleber 2011 {published data only}

Kleber M, deSousa G, Papcke S, Wabitsch M, Reinehr T. Impaired glucose tolerance in obese white children and adolescents: three to five year follow‐up in untreated patients. Experimental and Clinical Endocrinology & Diabetes 2011;119(3):172‐6. [PUBMED: 20827664]CENTRAL

Ko 1999 {published data only}

Ko GT, Chan JC, Lau E, Woo J, Cockram CS. Fasting plasma glucose as a screening test for diabetes and its relationship with cardiovascular risk factors in Hong Kong Chinese. Diabetes Care 1997;20(2):170‐2. CENTRAL
Ko GT, Li JK, Cheung AY, Yeung VT, Chow CC, Tsang LW, et al. Two‐hour post‐glucose loading plasma glucose is the main determinant for the progression from impaired glucose tolerance to diabetes in Hong Kong Chinese. Diabetes Care 1999;22(12):2096‐7. [PUBMED: 10587859]CENTRAL

Ko 2001 {published data only}

Ko GT, Chan JC, Cockram CS. Change of glycaemic status in Chinese subjects with impaired fasting glycaemia. Diabetic Medicine 2001;18(9):745‐8. [PUBMED: 11606173]CENTRAL

Larsson 2000 {published data only}

Larsson H, Ahren B, Lindgarde F, Berglund G. Fasting blood glucose in determining the prevalence of diabetes in a large, homogeneous population of Caucasian middle‐aged women. Journal of Internal Medicine 1995;237(6):537‐41. [PUBMED: 7782724]CENTRAL
Larsson H, Berglund G, Lindgarde F, Ahren B. Comparison of ADA and WHO criteria for diagnosis of diabetes and glucose intolerance. Diabetologia 1998;41(9):1124‐5. [PUBMED: 9754834]CENTRAL
Larsson H, Lindgärde F, Berglund G, Ahrén B. Prediction of diabetes using ADA or WHO criteria in post‐menopausal women: a 10‐year follow‐up study. Diabetologia 2000;43(10):1224‐8. [PUBMED: 11079739]CENTRAL

Latifi 2016 {published data only}

Latifi SM, Karandish M, Shahbazian H, Hardani Pasand L. Incidence of prediabetes and type 2 diabetes among people aged over 20 years in Ahvaz: a 5‐year perspective study (2009‐2014). Journal of Diabetes and Research 2016;2016:4908647. [PUBMED: 28004008]CENTRAL
Shahbazian H, Latifi SM, Jalali MT, Shahbazian H, Amani R, Nikhoo A, et al. Metabolic syndrome and its correlated factors in an urban population in South West of Iran. Journal of Diabetes & Metabolic Disorders 2013;12(1):11. [PUBMED: 23497506]CENTRAL

Lecomte 2007 {published data only}

Lecomte P, Vol S, Cacès E, Born C, Chabrolle C, Lasfargues G, et al. Five‐year predictive factors of type 2 diabetes in men with impaired fasting glucose. Diabetes & Metabolism 2007;33(2):140‐7. [PUBMED: 17320447]CENTRAL

Lee 2016 {published data only}

Lee JH, Lim JT, Kim HG, Oh MK, Lee WJ. Effect of coffee consumption on the progression of type 2 diabetes mellitus among prediabetic individuals. Korean Journal of Family Medicine 2016;37(1):7‐13. [PUBMED: 26885316]CENTRAL

Leiva 2014 {published data only}

Leiva E, Mujica V, Orrego R, Wehinger S, Soto A, Icaza G, et al. Subjects with impaired fasting glucose: evolution in a period of 6 years. Journal of Diabetes Research 2014;2014:710370. [DOI: 10.1155/2014/710370; PUBMED: 25215305]CENTRAL
Palomo GI, Icaza NG, Mujica EV, Nunez FL, Leiva ME, Vasquez RM, et al. Prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors in adult from Talca, Chile [Prevalencia de factores de riesgo cardiovascular clásicos en población adulta de Talca, Chile, 2005]. Revista Medica de Chile 2007;135(7):904‐12. [PUBMED: 17914548]CENTRAL

Levitzky 2008 {published data only}

Dawber TR, Kannel WB, Lyell LP. An approach to longitudinal studies in a community: the Framingham study. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1963;107:539‐56. [PUBMED: 14025561]CENTRAL
Hruby A, Ma J, Rogers G, Meigs JB, Jacques PF. Associations of dairy intake with incident prediabetes or diabetes in middle‐aged adults vary by both dairy type and glycemic status. Journal of Nutrition 2017;147(9):1764‐75. [PUBMED: 28768835]CENTRAL
Leong A, Daya N, Porneala B, Devlin JJ, Shiffman D, McPhaul MJ, et al. Prediction of type 2 diabetes by hemoglobin A1c in two community‐based cohorts. Diabetes Care 2018;41(1):60‐8. [PUBMED: 29074816]CENTRAL
Levitzky YS, Pencina MJ, D'Agostino RB, Meigs JB, Murabito JM, Vasan RS, et al. Impact of impaired fasting glucose on cardiovascular disease: the Framingham heart study. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2008;51(3):264‐70. [PUBMED: 18206734]CENTRAL
Wilson PW, Anderson KM, Kannel WB. Epidemiology of diabetes mellitus in the elderly. The Framingham study. American Journal of Medicine 1986;80(5A):3‐9. [PUBMED: 3706388]CENTRAL
Wilson PW, Meigs JB, Sullivan L, Fox CS, Nathan DM, D'Agostino RBSr. Prediction of incident diabetes mellitus in middle‐aged adults: the Framingham offspring study. Archives of Internal Medicine 2007;167(10):1068‐74. [PUBMED: 17533210]CENTRAL

Li 2003 {published data only}

Chou PS, Li CL, Wu GS, Tsai ST. Progression to type 2 diabetes among high‐risk groups in Kin‐Chen, Kinmen ‐ exploring the natural history of type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 1998;21(7):1183‐7. [PUBMED: 9653617]CENTRAL
Li CL, Tsai ST, Chou P. Comparison of the results between two diagnostic criteria by ADA and WHO among subjects with FPG 5.6‐7.8 mmol/l in Kin‐Hu and Kin‐Chen, Kinmen, 1991‐94. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice 1999;45(1):51‐9. CENTRAL
Li CL, Tsai ST, Chou P. Persistent impaired glucose tolerance, insulin resistance, and beta‐cell dysfunction were independent predictors of type 2 diabetes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2005;58(7):728‐32. CENTRAL
Li CL, Tsai ST, Chou P. Relative role of insulin resistance and beta‐cell dysfunction in the progression to type 2 diabetes ‐ the Kinmen study. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice 2003;59(3):225‐32. [PUBMED: 12590020]CENTRAL
Tsai ST, Li CL, Chen CH, Chou P. Community‐based epidemiological study of glucose tolerance in Kin‐Chen, Kinmen: support for a new intermediate classification. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2000;53(5):505‐10. [PUBMED: 10812323]CENTRAL

Ligthart 2016 {published data only}

Brahimaj A, Ligthart S, Ghanbari M, Ikram MA, Hofman A, Franco OH, et al. Novel inflammatory markers for incident pre‐diabetes and type 2 diabetes: the Rotterdam Study. European Journal of Epidemiology 2017;32(3):217‐26. [PUBMED: 28258520]CENTRAL
Hofman A, Darwish Murad S, van Duijn CM, Franco OH, Goedegebure A, Ikram MA, et al. The Rotterdam study: 2014 objectives and design update. European Journal of Epidemiology 2013;28(11):889‐926. CENTRAL
Ligthart S, van Herpt TT, Leening MJ, Kavousi M, Hofman A, Stricker BH, et al. Lifetime risk of developing impaired glucose metabolism and eventual progression from prediabetes to type 2 diabetes: a prospective cohort study. Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology 2016;4(1):44‐51. [PUBMED: 26575606]CENTRAL
van der Schaft N, Brahimaj A, Wen KX, Franco OH, Dehghan A. The association between serum uric acid and the incidence of prediabetes and type 2 diabetes mellitus: the Rotterdam study. PLOS ONE 2017;12(6):e0179482. [PUBMED: 28632742]CENTRAL

Lipska 2013 {published data only}

Lipska KJ, Inzucchi SE, Van Ness PH, Gill TM, Strotmeyer ES, Koster A, et al. Elevated HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose in predicting diabetes incidence among older adults: are two better than one?. Diabetes Care 2013;36(12):3923‐9. [PUBMED: 24135387]CENTRAL
Strotmeyer ES, de Rekeneire N, Schwartz AV, Faulkner KA, Resnick HE, Goodpaster BH, et al. The relationship of reduced peripheral nerve function and diabetes with physical performance in older white and black adults: the health, aging, and body composition (Health ABC) study. Diabetes Care 2008;31(9):1767‐72. [PUBMED: 18535192]CENTRAL

Liu 2008 {published data only}

Liu SJ, Guo ZR, Hu XS, Wu M, Chen FM, Kang GD, et al. Risks for type‐2 diabetes associated with the metabolic syndrome and the interaction between impaired fasting glucose and other components of metabolic syndrome. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice 2008;81(1):117‐23. [PUBMED: 18485514]CENTRAL

Liu 2014 {published data only}

Liu J, Wu YY, Huang XM, Yang M, Zha BB, Wang F, et al. Ageing and type 2 diabetes in an elderly Chinese population: the role of insulin resistance and beta cell dysfunction. European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences 2014;18(12):1790‐7. [PUBMED: 24992623]CENTRAL

Liu 2016 {published data only}

Liu X, Fine J P, Chen Z, Liu L, Li X, Wang A, et al. Prediction of the 20‐year incidence of diabetes in older Chinese: application of the competing risk method in a longitudinal study. Medicine 2016;95(40):e5057. [PUBMED: 27749572]CENTRAL
Tang Z, Wang HX, Meng C, Wu XG, Ericsson K, Winblad B, et al. The prevalence of functional disability in activities of daily living and instrumental activities of daily living among elderly Beijing Chinese. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics 1999;29(2):115‐25. CENTRAL
Tang Z, Zhou T, Luo Y, Xie C, Huo D, Tao L, et al. Risk factors for cerebrovascular disease mortality among the elderly in Beijing: a competing risk analysis. PLOS ONE 2014;9(2):e87884. CENTRAL

Liu 2017 {published data only}

He J, Neal B, Gu D, Suriyawongpaisal P, Xin X, Reynolds R, et al. International collaborative study of cardiovascular disease in Asia: design, rationale, and preliminary results. Ethnicity & Disease 2004;14(2):260‐8. CENTRAL
Liu FC, Yang XL, Li JX, Cao J, Chen JC, Li Y, et al. Association of fasting glucose levels with incident atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: an 8‐year follow‐up study in a Chinese population. Journal of Diabetes 2017;9(1):14‐23. [PUBMED: 26840038]CENTRAL

Lorenzo 2003 {published data only}

Abdul‐Ghani MA, Williams K, DeFronzo R, Stern M. Risk of progression to type 2 diabetes based on relationship between postload plasma glucose and fasting plasma glucose. Diabetes Care 2006;29(7):1613‐8. CENTRAL
Haffner SM, Bowsher RR, Mykkänen L, Hazuda HP, Mitchell BD, Valdez RA, et al. Proinsulin and specific insulin concentration in high‐ and low‐risk populations for NIDDM. Diabetes 1994;43(12):1490‐3. CENTRAL
Haffner SM, Miettinen H, Gaskill SP, Stern MP. Decreased insulin secretion and increased insulin resistance are independently related to the 7‐year risk of NIDDM in Mexican‐Americans. Diabetes 1995;44(12):1386‐91. [PUBMED: 7589843]CENTRAL
Haffner SM, Miettinen H, Stern M P. The homeostasis model in the San Antonio heart study. Diabetes Care 1997;20(7):1087‐92. CENTRAL
Haffner SM, Miettinen H, Stern MP. Are risk factors for conversion to NIDDM similar in high and low risk populations?. Diabetologia 1997;40(1):62‐6. [PUBMED: 9028719]CENTRAL
Haffner SM, Stern MP, Mitchell BD, Hazuda HP, Patterson JK. Incidence of type II diabetes in Mexican Americans predicted by fasting insulin and glucose levels, obesity, and body‐fat distribution. Diabetes 1990;39(3):283‐8. [PUBMED: 2407581]CENTRAL
Hazuda HP, Haffner SM, Stern MP, Eifler CW. Effects of acculturation and socioeconomic status on obesity and diabetes in Mexican Americans. The San Antonio heart study. American Journal of Epidemiology 1988;128(6):1289‐301. CENTRAL
Lorenzo C, Okoloise M, Williams K, Stern MP, Haffner S M. The metabolic syndrome as predictor of type 2 diabetes: the San Antonio heart study. Diabetes Care 2003;26(11):3153‐9. [PUBMED: 14578254]CENTRAL
Mitchell BD, Stern MP, Haffner SM, Hazuda HP, Patterson JK. Risk factors for cardiovascular mortality in Mexican Americans and non‐Hispanic whites. San Antonio heart study. American Journal of Epidemiology 1990;131(3):423‐33. CENTRAL
Stern MP, Morales PA, Valdez RA, Monterrosa A, Haffner SM, Mitchell BD, et al. Predicting diabetes. Moving beyond impaired glucose tolerance. Diabetes 1993;42(5):706‐14. [PUBMED: 8482427]CENTRAL
Stern MP, Rosenthal M, Haffner SM, Hazuda HP, Franco LJ. Sex difference in the effects of sociocultural status on diabetes and cardiovascular risk factors in Mexican Americans. The San Antonio heart study. American Journal of Epidemiology 1984;120(6):834‐51. [PUBMED: 6507426]CENTRAL

Lyssenko 2005 {published data only}

Groop L, Forsblom C, Lehtovirta M, Tuomi T, Karanko S, Nissen M, et al. Metabolic consequences of a family history of NIDDM (the Botnia study): evidence for sex‐specific parental effects. Diabetes 1996;45(11):1585‐93. [PUBMED: 8866565]CENTRAL
Lyssenko V, Almgren P, Anevski D, Perfekt R, Lahti K, Nissen M, et al. Predictors of and longitudinal changes in insulin sensitivity and secretion preceding onset of type 2 diabetes. Diabetes 2005;54(1):166‐74. [PUBMED: 15616025]CENTRAL
Tripathy D, Carlsson M, Almgren P, Isomaa B, Taskinen MR, Tuomi T, et al. Insulin secretion and insulin sensitivity in relation to glucose tolerance: lessons from the Botnia Study. Diabetes 2000;49(6):975‐80. CENTRAL

Magliano 2008 {published data only}

Al Salmi I, Hoy WE, Kondalsamy‐Chennakesavan S, Wang Z, Gobe GC, Barr EL, et al. Disorders of glucose regulation in adults and birth weight: results from the Australian diabetes, obesity and lifestyle (AUSDIAB) study. Diabetes Care 2008;31(1):159‐64. CENTRAL
Dunstan DW, Zimmet PZ, Welborn TA, Cameron AJ, Shaw J, de Courten M, et al. The Australian diabetes, obesity and lifestyle study (AusDiab) ‐ methods and response rates. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice 2002;57:119‐29. [PUBMED: 12062857]CENTRAL
Dunstan DW, Zimmet PZ, Welborn TA, De Courten MP, Cameron AJ, Sicree RA, et al. The rising prevalence of diabetes and impaired glucose tolerance: the Australian diabetes, obesity and lifestyle study. Diabetes Care 2002;25:829‐34. [PUBMED: 11978676]CENTRAL
Magliano DJ, Barr ELM, Zimmet PZ, Cameron AJ, Dunstan DW, Colagiuri S, et al. Glucose indices, health behaviors, and incidence of diabetes in Australia: the Australian diabetes, obesity and lifestyle study. Diabetes Care 2008;31(2):267‐72. [PUBMED: 17989310]CENTRAL
Sicree RA, Zimmet PZ, Dunstan DW, Cameron AJ, Welborn TA, Shaw JE. Differences in height explain gender differences in the response to the oral glucose tolerance test‐ the AusDiab study. Diabetic Medicine 2008;25(3):296‐302. CENTRAL
Soulimane S, Simon D, Shaw JE, Zimmet PZ, Vol S, Vistisen D, et al. Comparing incident diabetes as defined by fasting plasma glucose or by HbA(1c). The AusDiab, Inter99 and DESIR studies. Diabetic Medicine 2011;28(11):1311‐8. [PUBMED: 21824186]CENTRAL
Williams ED, Magliano DJ, Tapp RJ, Oldenburg BF, Shaw JE. Psychosocial stress predicts abnormal glucose metabolism: the Australian diabetes, obesity and lifestyle (AusDiab) study. Annals of Behavioral Medicine 2013;46(1):62‐72. [PUBMED: 23389687]CENTRAL

Man 2017 {published data only}

Foong AW, Saw SM, Loo JL, Shen S, Loon SC, Rosman M, et al. Rationale and methodology for a population‐based study of eye diseases in Malay people: the Singapore Malay eye study (SiMES). Ophthalmic Epidemiology 2007;14(1):25‐35. CENTRAL
Man RE, Charumathi S, Gan AT, Fenwick EK, Tey CS, Chua J, et al. Cumulative incidence and risk factors of prediabetes and type 2 diabetes in a Singaporean Malay cohort. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice 2017;127:163‐71. [PUBMED: 28371687]CENTRAL

Marshall 1994 {published data only}

Baxter J, Hamman RF, Lopez TK, Marshall JA, Hoag S, Swenson CJ. Excess incidence of known non‐insulin‐dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM) in Hispanics compared with non‐Hispanic whites in the San Luis Valley, Colorado. Ethnicity & Disease 1993;3(1):11‐21. CENTRAL
Boyko EJ, Keane EM, Marshall JA, Hamman RF. Higher insulin and C‐peptide concentrations in Hispanic population at high risk for NIDDM. San Luis Valley diabetes study. Diabetes 1991;40(4):509‐15. CENTRAL
Hamman RF, Marshall JA, Baxter J, Kahn LB, Mayer EJ, Orleans M, et al. Methods and prevalence of non‐insulin‐dependent diabetes mellitus in a bi‐ethnic Colorado population. The San Luis Valley diabetes study. American Journal of Epidemiology 1989;129(2):295‐311. [PUBMED: 2912042]CENTRAL
Marshall JA, Hoag S, Shetterly S, Hamman RF. Dietary fat predicts conversion from impaired glucose tolerance to NIDDM: the San Luis Valley diabetes study. Diabetes Care 1994;17(1):50‐6. [PUBMED: 8112189]CENTRAL
Nelson TL, Bessesen DH, Marshall JA. Relationship of abdominal obesity measured by DXA and waist circumference with insulin sensitivity in Hispanic and non‐Hispanic white individuals: the San Luis Valley diabetes study. Diabetes/metabolism Research and Reviews 2008;24(1):33‐40. CENTRAL

McNeely 2003 {published data only}

Bergstrom RW, Newell‐Morris LL, Leonetti DL, Shuman WP, Wahl PW, Fujimoto WY. Association of elevated fasting C‐peptide level and increased intra‐abdominal fat distribution with development of NIDDM in Japanese‐American men. Diabetes 1990;39(1):104‐11. CENTRAL
Fujimoto WY, Bergstrom RW, Boyko EJ, Kinyoun JL, Leonetti DL, Newell‐Morris LL, et al. Diabetes and diabetes risk factors in second‐ and third‐generation Japanese Americans in Seattle, Washington. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice 1994;24(Suppl):S43‐52. [PUBMED: 7859632]CENTRAL
Fujimoto WY, Bergstrom RW, Newell‐Morris L, Leonetti D L. Nature and nurture in the etiology of type 2 diabetes mellitus in Japanese Americans. Diabetes/metabolism Reviews 1989;5(7):607‐25. [PUBMED: 2689122]CENTRAL
Kahn SE, Leonetti DL, Prigeon RL, Boyko EJ, Bergstom RW, Fujimoto WY. Proinsulin levels predict the development of non‐insulin‐dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM) in Japanese‐American men. Diabetic Medicine 1996;13(9 Suppl 6):S63‐6. [PUBMED: 8894485]CENTRAL
Kahn SE, Leonetti DL, Prigeon RL, Boyko EJ, Bergstrom RW, Fujimoto WY. Proinsulin as a marker for the development of NIDDM in Japanese‐American men. Diabetes 1995;44(2):173‐9. CENTRAL
McNeely MJ, Boyko EJ, Leonetti DL, Kahn SE, Fujimoto WY. Comparison of a clinical model, the oral glucose tolerance test, and fasting glucose for prediction of type 2 diabetes risk in Japanese Americans. Diabetes Care 2003;26(3):758‐63. [PUBMED: 12610034]CENTRAL
Rodriguez BL, Abbott RD, Fujimoto W, Waitzfelder B, Chen R, Masaki K, et al. The American Diabetes Association and World Health Organization classifications for diabetes ‐ their impact on diabetes prevalence and total and cardiovascular disease mortality in elderly Japanese‐American men. Diabetes Care 2002;25(6):951‐5. [PUBMED: 12032097]CENTRAL

Meigs 2003 {published data only}

Blake DR, Meigs JB, Muller DC, Najjar SS, Andres R, Nathan DM. Impaired glucose tolerance, but not impaired fasting glucose, is associated with increased levels of coronary heart disease risk factors: results from the Baltimore longitudinal study on aging. Diabetes 2004;53(8):2095‐100. CENTRAL
Meigs JB, Muller DC, Nathan DM, Blake DR, Andres R. The natural history of progression from normal glucose tolerance to type 2 diabetes in the Baltimore longitudinal study of aging. Diabetes 2003;52(6):1475‐84. [PUBMED: 12765960]CENTRAL
Rodriguez A, Muller DC, Engelhardt M, Andres R. Contribution of impaired glucose tolerance in subjects with the metabolic syndrome: Baltimore longitudinal study of aging. Metabolism 2005;54(4):542‐7. CENTRAL
Shock NW, Greulich RC, Aremberg D, Costa PT, Lakatta EG, Tobin JD. Normal human aging: the Baltimore longitudinal study of aging. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Aging, Gerontology Research Center, Baltimore City Hospitals; 1984. Report No.: NIH‐84‐2450. CENTRAL
Sorkin JD, Muller DC, Fleg JL, Andres R. The relation of fasting and 2‐h postchallenge plasma glucose concentrations to mortality: data from the Baltimore longitudinal study of aging with a critical review of the literature. Diabetes Care 2005;28(11):2626‐32. CENTRAL

Mohan 2008 {published data only}

Deepa R, Shanthi Rani S, Premalatha G, Mohan V. Comparison of ADA 1997 and WHO 1985 criteria for diabetes in south Indiansb ‐ the Chennai urban population study. Diabetic Medicine 2000;17(12):872‐4. CENTRAL
Mohan V, Deepa M, Anjana RM, Lanthorn H, Deepa R. Incidence of diabetes and pre‐diabetes in a selected urban south Indian population (CUPS‐19). Journal of the Association of Physicians of India 2008;56:152‐7. [PUBMED: 18697630]CENTRAL
Mohan V, Gokulakrishnan K, Deepa R, Shanthirani CS, Datta M. Association of physical inactivity with components of metabolic syndrome and coronary artery disease ‐ the Chennai urban population study (CUPS no. 15). Diabetic Medicine 2005;22(9):1206‐11. CENTRAL
Mohan V, Shanthirani CS, Deepa M, Deepa R, Unnikrishnan RI, Datta M. Mortality rates due to diabetes in a selected urban south Indian population ‐ the Chennai urban population study [CUPS‐16]. Journal of the Association of Physicians of India 2006;54:113‐7. CENTRAL
Mohan V, Shanthirani CS, Deepa R. Glucose intolerance (diabetes and IGT) in a selected South Indian population with special reference to family history, obesity and lifestyle factors ‐ the Chennai urban population study (CUPS 14). Journal of the Association of Physicians of India 2003;51:771‐7. CENTRAL
Mohan V, Shanthirani S, Deepa R, Premalatha G, Sastry NG, Saroja R, et al. Intra‐urban differences in the prevalence of the metabolic syndrome in southern India ‐ the Chennai urban population study (CUPS No. 4). Diabetic Medicine 2001;18:280‐7. [PUBMED: 11437858]CENTRAL
Mohan V, Vijayachandrika V, Gokulakrishnan K, Anjana RM, Ganesan A, Weber MB, et al. A1C cut points to define various glucose intolerance groups in Asian Indians. Diabetes Care 2010;33(3):515‐9. CENTRAL
Pradeepa R, Deepa R, Rani SS, Premalatha G, Saroja R, Mohan V. Socioeconomic status and dyslipidaemia in a South Indian population: the Chennai urban population study (CUPS 11). National Medical Journal of India 2003;16(2):73‐8. CENTRAL
Premalatha G, Shanthirani S, Deepa R, Markovitz J, Mohan V. Prevalence and risk factors of peripheral vascular disease in a selected South Indian population: the Chennai urban population study. Diabetes Care 2000;23(9):1295‐300. CENTRAL
Shanthirani CS, Pradeepa R, Deepa R, Premalatha G, Saroja R, Mohan V. Prevalence and risk factors of hypertension in a selected South Indian population ‐ the Chennai urban population study. Journal of the Association of Physicians of India 2003;51:20‐7. CENTRAL

Motala 2003 {published data only}

Motala AA, Omar MA. Evaluation of WHO and NDDG criteria for impaired glucose tolerance. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice 1994;23(2):103‐9. [PUBMED: 8070301]CENTRAL
Motala AA, Omar MA. Evidence for impaired pancreatic beta cell function in South African Indians with impaired glucose tolerance. Diabetic Medicine 1994;11(5):437‐44. CENTRAL
Motala AA, Omar MA, Gouws E. High risk of progression to NIDDM in South‐African Indians with impaired glucose tolerance. Diabetes 1993;42(4):556‐63. [PUBMED: 8454106]CENTRAL
Motala AA, Omar MA, Gouws E. Transient impaired glucose tolerance in South African Indians does not carry a risk for progression to NIDDM. Diabetes Care 1997;20(7):1101‐7. [PUBMED: 9203444]CENTRAL
Motala AA, Pirie FJ, Gouws E, Amod A, Omar MA. High incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus in South African Indians: a 10‐year follow‐up study. Diabetic Medicine 2003;20(1):23‐30. [PUBMED: 12519316]CENTRAL
Omar MA, Seedat MA, Dyer RB, Motala AA, Knight LT, Becker PJ. South African Indians show a high prevalence of NIDDM and bimodality in plasma glucose distribution patterns. Diabetes Care 1994;17(1):70‐3. CENTRAL

Motta 2010 {published data only}

Anonymous. Prevalence of chronic diseases in older Italians: comparing self‐reported and clinical diagnoses. The Italian longitudinal study on aging working group. International Journal of Epidemiology 1997;26(5):995‐1002. [PUBMED: 9363520]CENTRAL
Maggi S, Zucchetto M, Grigoletto F, Baldereschi M, Candelise L, Scarpini E, et al. The Italian longitudinal study on aging (ILSA): design and methods. Aging 1994;6(6):464‐73. [PUBMED: 7748921]CENTRAL
Motta M, Bennati E, Cardillo E, Ferlito L, Malaguarnera M. The value of glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) as a predictive risk factor in the diagnosis of diabetes mellitus (DM) in the elderly. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics 2010;50(1):60‐4. CENTRAL
Motta M, Bennati E, Cardillo E, Ferlito L, Passamonte M, Vacante M, et al. A combination of glycosylated hemoglobin, impaired fasting glucose and waist circumference is effective in screening for individuals at risk for future type 2 diabetes. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics 2010;50(1):105‐9. [PUBMED: 19414203]CENTRAL

Mykkänen 1993 {published data only}

Mykkänen L, Kuusisto J, Pyorala K, Laakso M. Cardiovascular‐disease risk‐factors as predictors of type‐2 (non‐insulin‐dependent) diabetes‐mellitus in elderly subjects. Diabetologia 1993;36(6):553‐9. [PUBMED: 8335178]CENTRAL
Mykkänen L, Laakso M, Penttila I, Pyorala K. Asymptomatic hyperglycemia and cardiovascular risk factors in the elderly. Atherosclerosis 1991;88:153‐61. [PUBMED: 1892482]CENTRAL
Mykkänen L, Laakso M, Uusitupa M, Pyorala K. Prevalence of diabetes and impaired glucose tolerance in elderly subjects and their association with obesity and family history of diabetes. Diabetes Care 1990;13:1099‐105. [PUBMED: 2261821]CENTRAL
Wang J, Ruotsalainen S, Moilanen L, Lepisto P, Laakso M, Kuusisto J. The metabolic syndrome predicts cardiovascular mortality: a 13‐year follow‐up study in elderly non‐diabetic Finns. European Heart Journal 2007;28(7):857‐64. CENTRAL

Nakagami 2016 {published data only}

Nakagami T, Tanaka Y, Oya J, Kurita M, Isago C, Hasegawa Y, et al. Associations of HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose with incident diabetes: implications for pre‐diabetes thresholds in a Japanese population. Primary Care Diabetes 2016;10(6):407‐14. [PUBMED: 27515716]CENTRAL

Nakanishi 2004 {published data only}

Nakanishi N, Takatorige T, Fukuda H, Shirai K, Li W, Okamoto M, et al. Components of the metabolic syndrome as predictors of cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes in middle‐aged Japanese men. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice 2004;64(1):59‐70. [PUBMED: 15036828]CENTRAL

Noda 2010 {published data only}

Inoue M, Iwasaki M, Otani T, Sasazuki S, Noda M, Tsugane S. Diabetes mellitus and the risk of cancer: results from a large‐scale population‐based cohort study in Japan. Archives of Internal Medicine 2006;166(17):1871‐7. [PUBMED: 17000944]CENTRAL
Kato M, Takahashi Y, Matsushita Y, Mizoue T, Inoue M, Kadowaki T, et al. Diabetes mellitus defined by hemoglobin A1c value: risk characterization for incidence among Japanese subjects in the JPHC diabetes study. Journal of Diabetes Investigation 2011;2(5):359‐65. [PUBMED: 24843514]CENTRAL
Noda M, Kato M, Takahashi Y, Matsushita Y, Mizoue T, Inoue M, et al. Fasting plasma glucose and 5‐year incidence of diabetes in the JPHC diabetes study ‐ suggestion for the threshold for impaired fasting glucose among Japanese. Endocrine Journal 2010;57(7):629‐37. [PUBMED: 20508383]CENTRAL

Park 2006 {published data only}

Park YW, Chang Y, Sung KC, Ryu S, Sung E, Kim WS. The sequential changes in the fasting plasma glucose levels within normoglycemic range predict type 2 diabetes in healthy, young men. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice 2006;73(3):329‐35. [PUBMED: 16600415]CENTRAL
Ryu S, Shin H, Chang Y, Sung KC, Song J, Lee S J. Should the lower limit of impaired fasting glucose be reduced from 110 mg/dL in Korea?. Metabolism 2006;55(4):489‐93. CENTRAL

Peterson 2017 {published data only}

Norberg M, Wall S, Boman K, Weinehall L. The Västerbotten intervention programme: background, design and implications. Global Health Action 2010;3(1):4643. [PUBMED: 20339479]CENTRAL
Peterson M, Pingel R, Lagali N, Dahlin LB, Rolandsson O. Association between HbA1c and peripheral neuropathy in a 10‐year follow‐up study of people with normal glucose tolerance, impaired glucose tolerance and type 2 diabetes. Diabetic Medicine 2017;34(12):1756‐64. [PUBMED: 28929513]CENTRAL
Pourhamidi K, Dahlin LB, Boman K, Rolandsson O. Heat shock protein 27 is associated with better nerve function and fewer signs of neuropathy. Diabetologia 2011;54(12):3143‐9. [PUBMED: 21909836]CENTRAL

Qian 2012 {published data only}

Feng B, Li X, Huang YW. A survey of diabetes mellitus and its risk factors among permanent inhabitants in Shanghai Pudong new economic area. Chinese Journal of Diabetes 2004;12:187‐90. CENTRAL
Qian Q, Li X, Huang X, Fu M, Meng Z, Chen M, et al. Glucose metabolism among residents in Shanghai: natural outcome of a 5‐year follow‐up study. Journal of Endocrinological Investigation 2012;35(5):453‐8. [PUBMED: 21738002]CENTRAL

Rajala 2000 {published data only}

Qiao Q, Keinanen‐Kiukaanniemi S, Rajala U, Uusimaki A, Kivela SL. Risk for diabetes and persistent impaired glucose tolerance among middle‐aged Finns. Diabetes Research & Clinical Practice 1996;33(3):191‐8. [PUBMED: 8922541]CENTRAL
Rajala U, Keinanen‐Kiukaanniemi S, Uusimaki A, Reijula K, Kivela SL. Prevalence of diabetes mellitus and impaired glucose tolerance in a middle‐aged Finnish population. Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care 1995;13(3):222‐8. [PUBMED: 7481176]CENTRAL
Rajala U, Qiao Q, Laakso M, Keinänen‐Kiukaanniemi S. Antihypertensive drugs as predictors of type 2 diabetes among subjects with impaired glucose tolerance. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice 2000;50(3):231‐9. [PUBMED: 11106838]CENTRAL

Ramachandran 1986 {published data only}

Ramachandran A, Snehalatha C, Naik RA, Mohan V, Shobana R, Viswanathan M. Significance of impaired glucose tolerance in an Asian Indian population: a follow‐up study. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice 1986;2(3):173‐8. [PUBMED: 3527626]CENTRAL

Rasmussen 2008 {published data only}

Rasmussen SS, Glumer C, Sandbaek A, Lauritzen T, Borch‐Johnsen K. Determinants of progression from impaired fasting glucose and impaired glucose tolerance to diabetes in a high‐risk screened population: 3 year follow‐up in the ADDITION study, Denmark. Diabetologia 2008;51(2):249‐57. [PUBMED: 18060659]CENTRAL
Rasmussen SS, Glumer C, Sandbaek A, Lauritzen T, Borch‐Johnsen K. Progression from impaired fasting glucose and impaired glucose tolerance to diabetes in a high‐risk screening programme in general practice: the ADDITION study, Denmark. Diabetologia 2007;50(2):293‐7. [PUBMED: 17143605]CENTRAL

Rathmann 2009 {published data only}

Herder C, Kannenberg JM, Carstensen‐Kirberg M, Huth C, Meisinger C, Koenig W, et al. Serum levels of interleukin‐22, cardiometabolic risk factors and incident type 2 diabetes: KORA F4/FF4 study. Cardiovascular Diabetology 2017;16(1):17. [PUBMED: 28143481]CENTRAL
Kowall B, Rathmann W, Strassburger K, Meisinger C, Holle R, Mielck A. Socioeconomic status is not associated with type 2 diabetes incidence in an elderly population in Germany: KORA S4/F4 cohort study. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health 2011;65(7):606‐12. [PUBMED: 20693490]CENTRAL
Meisinger C, Doring A, Heier M. Blood pressure and risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus in men and women from the general population: the monitoring trends and determinants on cardiovascular diseases/cooperative health research in the region of Augsburg cohort study. Journal of Hypertension 2008;26(9):1809‐15. CENTRAL
Meisinger C, Doring A, Thorand B, Heier M, Lowel H. Body fat distribution and risk of type 2 diabetes in the general population: are there differences between men and women? The MONICA/KORA Augsburg cohort study. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2006;84(3):483‐9. CENTRAL
Meisinger C, Thorand B, Schneider A, Stieber J, Doring A, Lowel H. Sex differences in risk factors for incident type 2 diabetes mellitus: the MONICA Augsburg cohort study. Archives of Internal Medicine 2002;162(1):82‐9. [PUBMED: 11784224]CENTRAL
Rathmann W, Haastert B, Icks A, Lowel H, Meisinger C, Holle R, et al. High prevalence of undiagnosed diabetes mellitus in Southern Germany: target populations for efficient screening. The KORA survey 2000. Diabetologia 2003;46(2):182‐9. [PUBMED: 12627316]CENTRAL
Rathmann W, Meisinger C. How prevalent is type 2 diabetes in Germany? Results from the MONICA/KORA studies [Wie häufig ist Typ‐2‐Diabetes in Deutschland?]. Diabetologe 2010;6(3):170‐6. CENTRAL
Rathmann W, Strassburger K, Heier M, Holle R, Thorand B, Giani G, et al. Incidence of type 2 diabetes in the elderly German population and the effect of clinical and lifestyle risk factors: KORA S4/F4 cohort study. Diabetic Medicine 2009;26(12):1212‐9. [PUBMED: 20002472]CENTRAL

Rijkelijkhuizen 2007 {published data only}

Heine RJ, Nijpels G, Mooy JM. New data on the rate of progression of impaired glucose tolerance to NIDDM and predicting factors. Diabetic Medicine 1996;13(3 Suppl 2):S12‐4. CENTRAL
Mooy JM, Grootenhuis PA, de Vries H, Valkenburg HA, Bouter LM, Kostense PJ, et al. Prevalence and determinants of glucose intolerance in a Dutch Caucasian population. The Hoorn study. Diabetes Care 1995;18:1270‐3. [PUBMED: 8612442]CENTRAL
Nijpels G, Popp‐Snijders C, Kostense P J, Bouter LM, Heine RJ. Fasting proinsulin and 2‐h post‐load glucose levels predict the conversion to NIDDM in subjects with impaired glucose tolerance: the Hoorn study. Diabetologia 1996;39(1):113‐8. [PUBMED: 8720611]CENTRAL
Nijpels G, Popp‐Snijders C, Kostense PJ, Bouter LM, Heine RJ. Cardiovascular risk factors prior to the development of non‐insulin‐dependent diabetes mellitus in persons with impaired glucose tolerance: the Hoorn Study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1997;50(9):1003‐9. CENTRAL
Rijkelijkhuizen JM, Nijpels G, Heine RJ, Bouter LM, Stehouwer CD, Dekker JM. High risk of cardiovascular mortality in individuals with impaired fasting glucose is explained by conversion to diabetes: the Hoorn study. Diabetes Care 2007;30(2):332‐6. [PUBMED: 17259503]CENTRAL
Ruijgrok C, Dekker JM, Beulens JW, Brouwer IA, Coupe VMH, Heymans MW, et al. Size and shape of the associations of glucose, HbA1c, insulin and HOMA‐IR with incident type 2 diabetes: the Hoorn study. Diabetologia 2018;61(1):93‐100. [PUBMED: 29018885]CENTRAL
de Vegt F, Dekker JM, Jager A, Hienkens E, Kostense PJ, Stehouwer CD, et al. Relation of impaired fasting and postload glucose with incident type 2 diabetes in a Dutch population: the Hoorn study. JAMA 2001;285(16):2109‐13. [PUBMED: 11311100]CENTRAL
de Vegt F, Dekker JM, Stehouwer CD, Nijpels G, Bouter LM, Heine RJ. Similar 9‐year mortality risks and reproducibility for the World Health Organization and American Diabetes Association glucose tolerance categories: the Hoorn study. Diabetes Care 2000;23(1):40‐4. CENTRAL
de Vegt F, Dekker JM, Stehouwer CD, Nijpels G, Bouter LM, Heine RJ. The 1997 American Diabetes Association criteria versus the 1985 World Health Organization criteria for the diagnosis of abnormal glucose tolerance: poor agreement in the Hoorn study. Diabetes Care 1998;21(10):1686‐90. CENTRAL

Sadeghi 2015 {published data only}

Hosseini N, Talaei M, Dianatkhah M, Sadeghi M, Oveisgharan S, Sarrafzadegan N. Determinants of incident metabolic syndrome in a Middle Eastern population: Isfahan cohort study. Metabolic Syndrome and Related Disorders 2017;15(7):354‐62. [PUBMED: 28677982]CENTRAL
Sadeghi M, Talaei M, Parvaresh RE, Dianatkhah M, Oveisgharan S, Sarrafzadegan N. Determinants of incident prediabetes and type 2 diabetes in a 7‐year cohort in a developing country: the Isfahan cohort study. Journal of Diabetes 2015;7(5):633‐41. [PUBMED: 25350916]CENTRAL
Sarrafzadegan N, Talaei M, Sadeghi M, Kelishadi R, Oveisgharan S, Mohammadifard N, et al. The Isfahan cohort study: rationale, methods and main findings. Journal of Human Hypertension 2011;25(9):545‐53. [PUBMED: 21107436]CENTRAL

Sasaki 1982 {published data only}

Sasaki A, Suzuki T, Horiuchi N. Development of diabetes in Japanese subjects with impaired glucose tolerance: a seven year follow‐up study. Diabetologia 1982;22(3):154‐7. [PUBMED: 7075915]CENTRAL
Sasaki A, Suzuki T, Horiuchi N. Survival rate and causes of death in Japan. A 10‐year follow‐up study. Journal of Chronic Diseases 1980;33:341‐6. CENTRAL

Sato 2009 {published data only}

Sato KK, Hayashi T, Harita N, Yoneda T, Nakamura Y, Endo G, et al. Combined measurement of fasting plasma glucose and A1C is effective for the prediction of type 2 diabetes: the Kansai healthcare study. Diabetes Care 2009;32(4):644‐6. [PUBMED: 19131461]CENTRAL
Sato KK, Hayashi T, Kambe H, Nakamura Y, Harita N, Endo G, et al. Walking to work is an independent predictor of incidence of type 2 diabetes in Japanese men: the Kansai healthcare study. Diabetes Care 2007;30(9):2296‐8. [PUBMED: 17536075]CENTRAL
Sato KK, Hayashi T, Nakamura Y, Harita N, Yoneda T, Endo G, et al. Liver enzymes compared with alcohol consumption in predicting the risk of type 2 diabetes: the Kansai healthcare study. Diabetes Care 2008;31:1230‐6. [PUBMED: 18316395]CENTRAL

Schranz 1989 {published data only}

Katona G, Aganovic I, Vuksan V, Skrabalo Z. National Diabetes Programme in Malta: Phase I and II Final Report. Valletta: WHO, 1983. CENTRAL
Schranz AG. Abnormal glucose tolerance in the Maltese. A population‐based longitudinal study of the natural history of NIDDM and IGT in Malta. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice 1989;7(1):7‐16. [PUBMED: 2752891]CENTRAL

Sharifi 2013 {published data only}

Sharifi F, Jaberi Y, Mirzamohammadi F, Mirzamohammadi H, Mousavinasab N. Determinants of developing diabetes mellitus and vascular complications in patients with impaired fasting glucose. Indian Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism 2013;17(5):899‐905. [PUBMED: 24083174]CENTRAL

Shin 1997 {published data only}

Park Y, Lee H, Koh CS, Min H, Yoo K, Kim Y, et al. Prevalence of diabetes and IGT in Yonchon county, South Korea. Diabetes Care 1995;18:545‐8. [PUBMED: 7497867]CENTRAL
Shin CS, Lee HK, Koh CS, Kim YI, Shin YS, Yoo KY, et al. Risk factors for the development of NIDDM in Yonchon county, Korea. Diabetes Care 1997;20(12):1842‐6. [PUBMED: 9405904]CENTRAL

Söderberg 2004 {published data only}

Boyko EJ, Shaw JE, Zimmet PZ, Chitson P, Tuomilehto J, Alberti KG. A prospective study of glycemia, body size, insulin resistance and the risk of hypertension in Mauritius. Journal of Hypertension 2008;26(9):1742‐9. CENTRAL
Dowse GK, Zimmet PZ, Gareeboo H, George K, Alberti MM, Tuomilehto J, et al. Abdominal obesity and physical inactivity as risk factors for NIDDM and impaired glucose tolerance in Indian, Creole, and Chinese Mauritians. Diabetes Care 1991;14(4):271‐82. CENTRAL
Shaw JA, Zimmet PZ, de Courten M, Dowse GK, Chitson P, Gareeboo H, et al. Impaired fasting glucose or impaired glucose tolerance ‐ what best predicts future diabetes in Mauritius?. Diabetes Care 1999;22(3):399‐402. [PUBMED: 10097917]CENTRAL
Söderberg S, Zimmet P, Tuomilehto J, Courten M, Dowse GK, Chitson P, et al. High incidence of type 2 diabetes and increasing conversion rates from impaired fasting glucose and impaired glucose tolerance to diabetes in Mauritius. Journal of Internal Medicine 2004;256(1):37‐47. [PUBMED: 15189364]CENTRAL
Söderberg S, Zimmet P, Tuomilehto J, de Courten M, Dowse GK, Chitson P, et al. Increasing prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus in all ethnic groups in Mauritius. Diabetic Medicine 2005;22(1):61‐8. CENTRAL
Williams JW, Zimmet PZ, Shaw JE, de Courten MP, Cameron AJ, Chitson P, et al. Gender differences in the prevalence of impaired fasting glycaemia and impaired glucose tolerance in Mauritius. Does sex matter?. Diabetic Medicine 2003;20(11):915‐20. CENTRAL

Song 2015 {published data only}

Kim Y, Han BG. Cohort profile: the Korean genome and epidemiology study (KoGES) consortium. International Journal of Epidemiology 2017;46(2):e20. [PUBMED: 27085081]CENTRAL
Kim Y, Han BG. Cohort profile: the Korean genome and epidemiology study (KoGES) consortium [Erratum]. International Journal of Epidemiology 2017;46(4):1350. [PUBMED: 28938752]CENTRAL
Song BM, Kim HC, Lee JY, Lee JM, Kim DJ, Lee YH, et al. Performance of HbA1c for the prediction of diabetes in a rural community in Korea. Diabetic Medicine 2015;32(12):1602‐10. [PUBMED: 25962707]CENTRAL

Song 2016a {published data only}

Qiu M, Shen W, Song X, Ju L, Tong W, Wang H, et al. Effects of prediabetes mellitus alone or plus hypertension on subsequent occurrence of cardiovascular disease and diabetes mellitus: longitudinal study. Hypertension 2015;65(3):525‐30. [PUBMED: 25624343]CENTRAL
Song X, Qiu M, Zhang X, Wang H, Tong W, Ju L, et al. Gender‐related affecting factors of prediabetes on its 10‐year outcome. BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care 2016;4(1):e000169. [PUBMED: 27239315]CENTRAL
Tian JY, Cheng Q, Song XM, Li G, Jiang GX, Gu YY, et al. Birth weight and risk of type 2 diabetes, abdominal obesity and hypertension among Chinese adults. European Journal of Endocrinology/European Federation of Endocrine Societies 2006;155(4):601‐7. [PUBMED: 16990660]CENTRAL

Soriguer 2008 {published data only}

Soriguer F, Rojo‐Martínez G, Almaraz MC, Esteva I, Ruiz de Adana MS, Morcillo S, et al. Incidence of type 2 diabetes in southern Spain (Pizarra study). European Journal of Clinical Investigation 2008;38(2):126‐33. [PUBMED: 18226046]CENTRAL
Soriguer‐Escofet F, Esteva I, Rojo‐Martinez G, Ruiz de Adana S, Catala M, Merelo MJ, et al. Prevalence of latent autoimmune diabetes of adults (LADA) in Southern Spain. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice 2002;56(3):213‐20. CENTRAL

Stengard 1992 {published data only}

Keys A, Aravanis C, Blackburn HW, Van Buchem FS, Buzina R, Djordjevic BD, et al. Epidemiological studies related to coronary heart disease: characteristics of men aged 40‐59 in seven countries. Acta Medica Scandinavica. Supplementum 1966;460:1‐392. [MEDLINE: 5226858]CENTRAL
Nissinen A, Kivela SL, Pekkanen J, Tuomilehto J, Kostiainen E, Piippo H, et al. Levels of some biological risk indicators among elderly men in Finland. Age and Ageing 1986;15(4):203‐11. [PUBMED: 3751746]CENTRAL
Stengård JH, Pekkanen J, Tuomilehto J, Kivinen P, Kaarsalo E, Tamminen M, et al. Changes in glucose tolerance among elderly Finnish men during a five‐year follow‐up: the Finnish cohorts of the seven countries study. Diabete & Metabolisme 1992;19(1 Pt 2):121‐9. [PUBMED: 8314414]CENTRAL

Toshihiro 2008 {published data only}

Toshihiro M, Saito K, Takikawa S, Takebe N, Onoda T, Satoh J. Psychosocial factors are independent risk factors for the development of type 2 diabetes in Japanese workers with impaired fasting glucose and/or impaired glucose tolerance. Diabetic Medicine 2008;25(10):1211‐7. [PUBMED: 19046200]CENTRAL

Vaccaro 1999 {published data only}

Vaccaro O, Ruffa G, Imperatore G, Iovino V, Rivellese AA, Riccardi G. Risk of diabetes in the new diagnostic category of impaired fasting glucose: a prospective analysis. Diabetes Care 1999;22(9):1490‐3. [PUBMED: 10480514]CENTRAL

Valdes 2008 {published data only}

Valdes S, Botas P, Delgado E, Alvarez F, Cadorniga FD. Population‐based incidence of type 2 diabetes in northern Spain: the Asturias study. Diabetes Care 2007;30(9):2258‐63. [PUBMED: 17536076]CENTRAL
Valdes S, Botas P, Delgado E, Alvarez F, Diaz‐Cadorniga F. HbA(1c) in the prediction of type 2 diabetes compared with fasting and 2‐h post‐challenge plasma glucose: the Asturias study (1998‐2005). Diabetes & Metabolism 2011;37(1):27‐32. [PUBMED: 20934897]CENTRAL
Valdés S, Botas P, Delgado E, Álvarez F, Cadórniga FD. Does the new American Diabetes Association definition for impaired fasting glucose improve its ability to predict type 2 diabetes mellitus in Spanish persons? The Asturias study. Metabolism 2008;57(3):399‐403. [PUBMED: 18249214]CENTRAL

Vijayakumar 2017 {published data only}

Vijayakumar P, Nelson R G, Hanson R L, Knowler W C, Sinha M. HbA1c and the prediction of type 2 diabetes in children and adults. Diabetes Care 2017;40(1):16‐21. [PUBMED: 27810987]CENTRAL

Viswanathan 2007 {published data only}

Viswanathan V, Clementina M, Nair BM, Satyavani K. Risk of future diabetes is as high with abnormal intermediate post‐glucose response as with impaired glucose tolerance. Journal of the Association of Physicians of India 2007;55:833‐7. [PUBMED: 18405128]CENTRAL

Wang 2007 {published data only}

Wang JJ, Li HB, Kinnunen L, Hu G, Jarvinen TM, Miettinen ME, et al. How well does the metabolic syndrome defined by five definitions predict incident diabetes and incident coronary heart disease in a Chinese population?. Atherosclerosis 2007;192(1):161‐8. [PUBMED: 16720024]CENTRAL
Wang JJ, Qiao Q, Miettinen ME, Lappalainen J, Hu G, Tuomilehto J. The metabolic syndrome defined by factor analysis and incident type 2 diabetes in a Chinese population with high postprandial glucose. Diabetes Care 2004;27(10):2429‐37. [PUBMED: 15451912]CENTRAL
Wang JJ, Yuan SY, Zhu LX, Fu HJ, Li HB, Hu G, et al. Effects of impaired fasting glucose and impaired glucose tolerance on predicting incident type 2 diabetes in a Chinese population with high post‐prandial glucose. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice 2004;66(2):183‐91. [PUBMED: 15533586]CENTRAL

Wang 2011 {published data only}

Howard BV, Lee ET, Cowan LD, Devereux RB, Galloway JM, Go OT, et al. Rising tide of cardiovascular disease in American Indians. The strong heart study. Circulation 1999;99(18):2389‐95. CENTRAL
Lee ET, Howard BV, Go O, Savage PJ, Fabsitz RR, Robbins DC, et al. Prevalence of undiagnosed diabetes in three American Indian populations. A comparison of the 1997 American Diabetes Association diagnostic criteria and the 1985 World Health Organization diagnostic criteria: the strong heart study. Diabetes Care 2000;23(2):181‐6. CENTRAL
Lee ET, Howard BV, Savage PJ, Cowan LD, Fabsitz RR, Oopik AJ, et al. Diabetes and impaired glucose tolerance in three American Indian populations aged 45‐74 years. The strong heart study. Diabetes Care 1995;18(5):599‐610. CENTRAL
Lee ET, Welty TK, Cowan LD, Wang W, Rhoades DA, Devereux R, et al. Incidence of diabetes in American Indians of three geographic areas: the strong heart study. Diabetes Care 2002;25(1):49‐54. [PUBMED: 11772900]CENTRAL
Lee ET, Welty TK, Fabsitz R, Cowan LD, Le NA, Oopik AJ, et al. The strong heart study. A study of cardiovascular disease in American Indians: design and methods. American Journal of Epidemiology 1990;132(6):1141‐55. [PUBMED: 2260546]CENTRAL
Lu W, Resnick HE, Jain AK, Adams‐Campbell LL, Jablonski KA, Gottlieb AM, et al. Effects of isolated post‐challenge hyperglycemia on mortality in American Indians: the strong heart study. Annals of Epidemiology 2003;13(3):182‐8. CENTRAL
Wang H, Shara N M, Calhoun D, Umans JG, Lee ET, Howard BV. Incidence rates and predictors of diabetes in those with prediabetes: the strong heart study. Diabetes/metabolism Research and Reviews 2010;26(5):378‐85. [PUBMED: 20578203]CENTRAL
Wang W, Lee ET, Fabsitz R, Welty TK, Howard BV. Using HbA(1c) to improve efficacy of the American Diabetes Association fasting plasma glucose criterion in screening for new type 2 diabetes in American Indians: the strong heart study. Diabetes Care 2002;25(8):1365‐70. CENTRAL
Wang W, Lee ET, Howard BV, Fabsitz RR, Devereux RB, Welty TK. Fasting plasma glucose and hemoglobin A1c in identifying and predicting diabetes: the strong heart study. Diabetes Care 2011;34(2):363‐8. [PUBMED: 21270194]CENTRAL
de Simone G, Devereux RB, Chinali M, Best LG, Lee ET, Galloway JM, et al. Prognostic impact of metabolic syndrome by different definitions in a population with high prevalence of obesity and diabetes: the strong heart study. Diabetes Care 2007;30(7):1851‐6. CENTRAL

Warren 2017 {published data only}

Leong A, Daya N, Porneala B, Devlin JJ, Shiffman D, McPhaul MJ, et al. Prediction of type 2 diabetes by hemoglobin A1c in two community‐based cohorts. Diabetes Care 2018;41(1):60‐8. [PUBMED: 29074816]CENTRAL
Schmidt MI, Duncan BB, Bang H, Pankow JS, Ballantyne CM, Golden SH, et al. Identifying individuals at high risk for diabetes ‐ the atherosclerosis risk in communities study. Diabetes Care 2005;28(8):2013‐8. [PUBMED: 16043747]CENTRAL
Selvin E, Rawlings AM, Grams M, Klein R, Sharrett AR, Steffes M, et al. Fructosamine and glycated albumin for risk stratification and prediction of incident diabetes and microvascular complications: a prospective cohort analysis of the atherosclerosis risk in communities (ARIC) study. Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology 2014;2(4):279‐88. [PUBMED: 24703046]CENTRAL
Selvin E, Steffes M W, Gregg E, Brancati F L, Coresh J. Performance of A1C for the classification and prediction of diabetes. Diabetes Care 2011;34(1):84‐9. [PUBMED: 20855549]CENTRAL
Selvin E, Steffes MW, Zhu H, Matsushita K, Wagenknecht L, Pankow J, et al. Glycated hemoglobin, diabetes, and cardiovascular risk in nondiabetic adults. New England Journal of Medicine 2010;362(9):800‐11. [PUBMED: 20200384]CENTRAL
Warren B, Pankow J S, Matsushita K, Punjabi NM, Daya NR, Grams M, et al. Comparative prognostic performance of definitions of prediabetes: a prospective cohort analysis of the atherosclerosis risk in communities (ARIC) study. Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology 2017;5(1):34‐42. [PUBMED: 27863979]CENTRAL
Whelton SP, McEvoy JW, Lazo M, Coresh J, Ballantyne CM, Selvin E. High‐sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs‐cTnT) as a predictor of incident diabetes in the atherosclerosis risk in communities study. Diabetes Care 2017;40(2):261‐9. [PUBMED: 28108537]CENTRAL

Wat 2001 {published data only}

Janus ED. Epidemiology of cardiovascular risk factors in Hong Kong. Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology & Physiology 1997;24(12):987‐8. [PUBMED: 9406673]CENTRAL
Janus ED, Watt NM, Lam KS, Cockram CS, Siu ST, Liu LJ, et al. The prevalence of diabetes, association with cardiovascular risk factors and implications of diagnostic criteria (ADA 1997 and WHO 1998) in a 1996 community‐based population study in Hong Kong Chinese. Diabetic Medicine 2000;17(10):741‐5. [PUBMED: 11110508]CENTRAL
Tan KC, Wat NM, Tam SC, Janus ED, Lam TH, Lam KS. C‐reactive protein predicts the deterioration of glycemia in Chinese subjects with impaired glucose tolerance. Diabetes Care 2003;26(8):2323‐8. CENTRAL
Wat NM, Lam TH, Janus ED, Lam KS. Central obesity predicts the worsening of glycemia in southern Chinese. International Journal of Obesity and Related Metabolic Disorders 2001;25(12):1789‐93. [PUBMED: 11781759]CENTRAL

Weiss 2005 {published data only}

Weiss R, Dziura J, Burgert TS, Tamborlane WV, Taksali SE, Yeckel CW, et al. Obesity and the metabolic syndrome in children and adolescents. New England Journal of Medicine 2004;350(23):2362‐74. [PUBMED: 15175438]CENTRAL
Weiss R, Taksali SE, Tamborlane WV, Burgert TS, Savoye M, Caprio S. Predictors of changes in glucose tolerance status in obese youth. Diabetes Care 2005;28(4):902‐9. [PUBMED: 15793193]CENTRAL

Wheelock 2016 {published data only}

Wheelock KM, Sinha M, Knowler WC, Nelson RG, Fufaa GD, Hanson RL. Metabolic risk factors and type 2 diabetes incidence in American Indian children. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 2016;101(4):1437‐44. [PUBMED: 26913636]CENTRAL

Wong 2003 {published data only}

Tan CE, Emmanuel SC, Tan BY, Jacob E. Prevalence of diabetes and ethnic differences in cardiovascular risk factors. The 1992 Singapore national health survey. Diabetes Care 1999;22(2):241‐7. [PUBMED: 10333940]CENTRAL
Wong MS, Gu K, Heng D, Chew SK, Chew LS, Tai ES. The Singapore impaired glucose tolerance follow‐up study: does the ticking clock go backward as well as forward?. Diabetes Care 2003;26(11):3024‐30. [PUBMED: 14578234]CENTRAL

Yeboah 2011 {published data only}

Bild DE, Bluemke DA, Burke GL, Detrano R, Diez Roux AV, Folsom AR, et al. Multi‐ethnic study of atherosclerosis: objectives and design. American Journal of Epidemiology 2002;156(9):871‐81. [PUBMED: 12397006]CENTRAL
Yeboah J, Bertoni A G, Herrington DM, Post WS, Burke GL. Impaired fasting glucose and the risk of incident diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular events in an adult population: MESA (multi‐ethnic study of atherosclerosis). Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2011;58(2):140‐6. [PUBMED: 21718910]CENTRAL

Zethelius 2004 {published data only}

Byberg L, McKeigue PM, Zethelius B, Lithell HO. Birth weight and the insulin resistance syndrome: association of low birth weight with truncal obesity and raised plasminogen activator inhibitor‐1 but not with abdominal obesity or plasma lipid disturbances. Diabetologia 2000;43(1):54‐60. [PUBMED: 10663216]CENTRAL
Hedstrand H. A study of middle‐aged men with particular reference to risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Upsala Journal of Medical Sciences 1975;Suppl 19:1‐61. [PUBMED: 1216390]CENTRAL
Zethelius B, Hales CN, Lithell HO, Berne C. Insulin resistance, impaired early insulin response, and insulin propeptides as predictors of the development of type 2 diabetes: a population‐based, 7‐year follow‐up study in 70‐year‐old men. Diabetes Care 2004;27(6):1433‐8. [PUBMED: 15161800]CENTRAL

References to studies excluded from this review

Ir a:

Abdul‐Ghani 2011 {published data only}

Abdul‐Ghani MA, Abdul‐Ghani T, Muller G, Bergmann A, Fischer S, Bornstein S, et al. Role of glycated hemoglobin in the prediction of future risk of T2DM. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism 2011;96(8):2596‐600. CENTRAL

Alvarsson 2009 {published data only}

Alvarsson M, Hilding A, Ostenson CG. Factors determining normalization of glucose intolerance in middle‐aged Swedish men and women: a 8‐10‐year follow‐up. Diabetic Medicine 2009;26(4):345‐53. CENTRAL
Andersson CM, Bjaras GE, Ostenson CG. A stage model for assessing a community‐based diabetes prevention program in Sweden. Health Promotion International 2002;17(4):317‐27. CENTRAL
Eriksson AK, Ekbom A, Granath F, Hilding A, Efendic S, Ostenson CG. Psychological distress and risk of pre‐diabetes and type 2 diabetes in a prospective study of Swedish middle‐aged men and women. Diabetic Medicine 2008;25(7):834‐42. CENTRAL
Eriksson K F, Lindgärde F. Poor physical fitness, and impaired early insulin response but late hyperinsulinaemia, as predictors of NIDDM in middle‐aged Swedish men. Diabetologia 1996;39(5):573‐9. CENTRAL

Alyass 2015 {published data only}

Alyass A, Almgren P, Akerlund M, Dushoff J, Isomaa B, Nilsson P, et al. Modelling of OGTT curve identifies 1 h plasma glucose level as a strong predictor of incident type 2 diabetes: results from two prospective cohorts. Diabetologia 2015;58(1):87‐97. CENTRAL

Amoah 2002 {published data only}

Amoah AG. Undiagnosed diabetes and impaired glucose regulation in adult Ghanaians using the ADA and WHO diagnostic criteria. Acta Diabetologica 2002;39(1):7‐13. CENTRAL

Andreou 2017 {published data only}

Andreou E, Papandreou D, Hajigeorgiou P, Kyriakou K, Avraam T, Chappa G, et al. Type 2 diabetes and its correlates in a first nationwide study among Cypriot adults. Primary Care Diabetes 2017;11(2):112‐8. CENTRAL

Bancks 2015 {published data only}

Bancks MP, Odegaard AO, Koh WP, Yuan JM, Gross MD, Pereira MA. Glycated hemoglobin and incident type 2 diabetes in Singaporean Chinese adults: the Singapore Chinese health study. PLOS ONE 2015;10(3):e0119884. CENTRAL

Birmingham Diabetes Survey Working Party 1976 {published data only}

Birmingham Diabetes Survey Working Party 1976. Ten‐year follow‐up report on Birmingham diabetes survey of 1961. Report by the Birmingham diabetes survey working party. British Medical Journal 1976;2(6026):35‐7. CENTRAL

Bjornholt 2000 {published data only}

Bjornholt JV, Erikssen G, Liestol K, Jervell J, Thaulow E, Erikssen J. Type 2 diabetes and maternal family history: an impact beyond slow glucose removal rate and fasting hyperglycemia in low‐risk individuals? Results from 22.5 years of follow‐up of healthy nondiabetic men. Diabetes Care 2000;23(9):1255‐9. CENTRAL

Bodicoat 2017 {published data only}

Bodicoat DH, Khunti K, Srinivasan BT, Mostafa S, Gray LJ, Davies MJ, et al. Incident type 2 diabetes and the effect of early regression to normoglycaemia in a population with impaired glucose regulation. Diabetic Medicine 2017;34(3):396‐404. [PUBMED: 26871995]CENTRAL

Boned 2016 {published data only}

Boned Ombuena P, Rodilla Sala E, Costa Munoz JA, Pascual Izuel JM. Arterial hypertension and prediabetes. Medicina Clinica 2016;147(9):387‐92. CENTRAL

Boucher 2015 {published data only}

Boucher AB, Adesanya EA, Owei I, Gilles AK, Ebenibo S, Wan J, et al. Dietary habits and leisure‐time physical activity in relation to adiposity, dyslipidemia, and incident dysglycemia in the pathobiology of prediabetes in a biracial cohort study. Metabolism 2015;64(9):1060‐7. CENTRAL

Brantsma 2005 {published data only}

Brantsma AH, Bakker SJL, Hillege HL, de Zeeuw D, de Jong PE, Gansevoort RT. Urinary albumin excretion and its relation with C‐reactive protein and the metabolic syndrome in the prediction of type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2005;28(10):2525‐30. CENTRAL

Brateanu 2017 {published data only}

Brateanu A, Barwacz T, Kou L, Wang S, Misra‐Hebert AD, Hu B, et al. Determining the optimal screening interval for type 2 diabetes mellitus using a risk prediction model. PLOS ONE 2017;12(11):e0187695. CENTRAL

Braun 1996 {published data only}

Braun B, Zimmermann MB, Kretchmer N, Spargo RM, Smith RM, Gracey M. Risk factors for diabetes and cardiovascular disease in young Australian aborigines. A 5‐year follow‐up study. Diabetes Care 1996;19(5):472‐9. CENTRAL

Burchfiel 1995 {published data only}

Burchfiel CM, Curb JD, Rodriguez BL, Yano K, Hwang LJ, Fong KO, et al. Incidence and predictors of diabetes in Japanese‐American men. The Honolulu heart program. Annals of Epidemiology 1995;5(1):33‐43. CENTRAL

Chamukuttan 2016 {published data only}

Chamukuttan S, Ram J, Nanditha A, Shetty AS, Sevick MA, Bergman M, et al. Baseline level of 30‐min plasma glucose is an independent predictor of incident diabetes among Asian Indians: analysis of two diabetes prevention programmes. Diabetes‐Metabolism Research and Reviews 2016;32(7):762‐7. CENTRAL

Chang 2017 {published data only}

Chang CH, Yeh YC, Shih SR, Lin JW, Chuang LM, Caffrey JL, et al. Association between thyroid dysfunction and dysglycaemia: a prospective cohort study. Diabetic Medicine 2017;34(11):1584‐90. CENTRAL

Chen 1995 {published data only}

Chen KW, Boyko EJ, Bergstrom RW, Leonetti DL, Newell‐Morris L, Wahl PW, et al. Earlier appearance of impaired insulin secretion than of visceral adiposity in the pathogenesis of NIDDM: 5‐year follow‐up of initially nondiabetic Japanese‐American men. Diabetes Care 1995;18(6):747‐53. CENTRAL

Cheng 2011 {published data only}

Cheng P, Neugaard B, Foulis P, Conlin PR. Hemoglobin A1c as a predictor of incident diabetes. Diabetes Care 2011;34(3):610‐5. CENTRAL

Cheung 2007 {published data only}

Cheung BM, Wat NM, Man YB, Tam S, Thomas GN, Leung GM, et al. Development of diabetes in Chinese with the metabolic syndrome: a 6‐year prospective study. Diabetes Care 2007;30(6):1430‐6. CENTRAL

Choi 2002 {published data only}

Choi KM, Lee J, Kim DR, Kim SK, Shin DH, Kim NH, et al. Comparison of ADA and WHO criteria for the diagnosis of diabetes in elderly Koreans. Diabetic Medicine 2002;19(10):853‐7. CENTRAL

Cicero 2005 {published data only}

Cicero AF, Derosa G, Rosticci M, D'Addato S, Agnoletti D, Borghi C, et al. Long‐term predictors of impaired fasting glucose and type 2 diabetes in subjects with family history of type 2 diabetes: a 12‐years follow‐up of the Brisighella heart study historical cohort. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice 2014;104(1):183‐8. CENTRAL
Cicero AF, Dormi A, Nascetti S, Panourgia MP, Grandi E, D'Addato S, et al. Relative role of major risk factors for type 2 diabetes development in the historical cohort of the Brisighella heart study: an 8‐year follow‐up. Diabetic Medicine 2005;22(9):1263‐6. CENTRAL

Cosson 2011 {published data only}

Cosson E, Nguyen MT, Hamo‐Tchatchouang E, Banu I, Chiheb S, Charnaux N, et al. What would be the outcome if the American Diabetes Association recommendations of 2010 had been followed in our practice in 1998‐2006?. Diabetic Medicine 2011;28(5):567‐74. CENTRAL

Costa 2005 {published data only}

Costa B, Vizcaino J, Pinol J, Martin F, Cabre J J, Basora J, et al. The RECORD project. continuous blood glucose monitoring among high risk subjects for developing diabetes in Spanish primary health care. Atencion Primaria 2005;35(2):99‐104. CENTRAL

Cree‐Green 2013 {published data only}

Cree‐Green M, Triolo TM, Nadeau KJ. Etiology of insulin resistance in youth with type 2 diabetes. Current Diabetes Reports 2013;13(1):81‐8. CENTRAL

Cropano 2017 {published data only}

Cropano C, Santoro N, Groop L, Dalla Man C, Cobelli C, Galderisi A, et al. The rs7903146 variant in the TCF7L2 gene increases the risk of prediabetes/type 2 diabetes in obese adolescents by impairing beta‐cell function and hepatic insulin sensitivity. Diabetes Care 2017;40(8):1082‐9. CENTRAL

Dagogo‐Jack 2011 {published data only}

Dagogo‐Jack S, Edeoga C, Ebenibo S, Chapp‐Jumbo E. Pathobiology of prediabetes in a biracial cohort (POP‐ABC) study: baseline characteristics of enrolled subjects. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism 2013;98(1):120‐8. CENTRAL
Dagogo‐Jack S, Edeoga C, Ebenibo S, Nyenwe E, Wan J. Lack of racial disparity in incident prediabetes and glycemic progression among black and white offspring of parents with type 2 diabetes: the pathobiology of prediabetes in a biracial cohort (POP‐ABC) study. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism 2014;99(6):E1078‐87. CENTRAL
Dagogo‐Jack S, Edeoga C, Nyenwe E, Chapp‐Jumbo E, Wan J. Pathobiology of prediabetes in a biracial cohort (POP‐ABC): design and methods. Ethnicity & Disease 2011;21(1):33‐9. CENTRAL
Edeoga C, Owei I, Siwakoti K, Umekwe N, Ceesay F, Wan J, et al. Relationships between blood pressure and blood glucose among offspring of parents with type 2 diabetes: prediction of incident dysglycemia in a biracial cohort. Journal of Diabetes and Its Complications 2017;31(11):1580‐6. CENTRAL
Owei I, Umekwe N, Wan J, Dagogo‐Jack S. Plasma lipid levels predict dysglycemia in a biracial cohort of nondiabetic subjects: potential mechanisms. Experimental Biology and Medicine 2016;241(17):1961‐7. CENTRAL

Daniel 1999 {published data only}

Daniel M, Rowley KG, McDermott R, Mylvaganam A, O'Dea K. Diabetes incidence in an Australian aboriginal population. An 8‐year follow‐up study. Diabetes Care 1999;22(12):1993‐8. CENTRAL

Decode 2003 {published data only}

Decode Study Group European Diabetes Epidemiology Group. Is the current definition for diabetes relevant to mortality risk from all causes and cardiovascular and noncardiovascular diseases?. Diabetes Care 2003;26(3):688‐96. CENTRAL

Deedwania 2013 {published data only}

Deedwania P, Patel K, Fonarow GC, Desai RV, Zhang Y, Feller MA, et al. Prediabetes is not an independent risk factor for incident heart failure, other cardiovascular events or mortality in older adults: findings from a population‐based cohort study. International Journal of Cardiology 2013;168(4):3616‐22. CENTRAL

DeFina 2012 {published data only}

DeFina LF, Vega GL, Leonard D, Grundy SM. Fasting glucose, obesity, and metabolic syndrome as predictors of type 2 diabetes: the Cooper center longitudinal study. Journal of Investigative Medicine 2012;60(8):1164‐8. CENTRAL

DeJesus 2016 {published data only}

DeJesus RS, Breitkopf CR, Rutten LJ, Jacobson DJ, Wilson PM, Sauver JS. Incidence rate of prediabetes progression to diabetes: modeling an optimum target group for intervention. Population Health Management 2016;30:30. CENTRAL

Deschenes 2016 {published data only}

Deschenes SS, Burns RJ, Graham E, Schmitz N. Prediabetes, depressive and anxiety symptoms, and risk of type 2 diabetes: a community‐based cohort study. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 2016;89:85‐90. CENTRAL

Dinneen 1998 {published data only}

Dinneen SF, Maldonado D, Leibson CL, Klee GG, Li H, Melton LJ, et al. Effects of changing diagnostic criteria on the risk of developing diabetes. Diabetes Care 1998;21(9):1408‐13. CENTRAL

Doi 2007 {published data only}

Doi Y, Kubo M, Yonemoto K, Ninomiya T, Iwase M, Tanizaki Y, et al. Liver enzymes as a predictor for incident diabetes in a Japanese population: the Hisayama study. Obesity 2007;15(7):1841‐50. CENTRAL
Mukai N, Doi Y, Ninomiya T, Hata J, Hirakawa Y, Fukuhara M, et al. Cut‐off values of fasting and post‐load plasma glucose and HbA1c for predicting type 2 diabetes in community‐dwelling Japanese subjects: the Hisayama study. Diabetic Medicine 2012;29(1):99‐106. CENTRAL

Du 2016 {published data only}

Du TT, Yuan G, Zhou XR, Sun XX. Sex differences in the effect of HbA1c‐defined diabetes on a wide range of cardiovascular disease risk factors. Annals of Medicine 2016;48(1‐2):34‐41. CENTRAL

Edelman 2004 {published data only}

Edelman D, Olsen MK, Dudley TK, Harris AC, Oddone EZ. Utility of hemoglobin A1c in predicting diabetes risk. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2004;19(12):1175‐80. CENTRAL

Edelstein 1997 {published data only}

Edelstein SL, Knowler WC, Bain RP, Andres R, Barrett‐Connor EL, Dowse GK, et al. Predictors of progression from impaired glucose tolerance to NIDDM: an analysis of six prospective studies. Diabetes 1997;46(4):701‐10. CENTRAL

Engberg 2010 {published data only}

Engberg S, Glumer C, Witte D R, Jorgensen T, Borch‐Johnsen K. Differential relationship between physical activity and progression to diabetes by glucose tolerance status: the Inter99 Study. Diabetologia 2010;53(1):70‐8. CENTRAL
Engberg S, Vistisen D, Lau C, Glumer C, Jorgensen T, Pedersen O, et al. Progression to impaired glucose regulation and diabetes in the population‐based Inter99 study. Diabetes Care 2009;32(4):606‐11. CENTRAL
Glumer C, Jorgensen T, Borch‐Johnsen K. Prevalences of diabetes and impaired glucose regulation in a Danish population: the Inter99 study. Diabetes Care 2003;26(8):2335‐40. CENTRAL
Jorgensen T, Borch‐Johnsen K, Thomsen TF, Ibsen H, Glumer C, Pisinger C. A randomized non‐pharmacological intervention study for prevention of ischaemic heart disease: baseline results Inter99. Europan Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation 2003;10(5):377‐86. CENTRAL
Soulimane S, Simon D, Shaw JE, Zimmet PZ, Vol S, Vistisen D, et al. Comparing incident diabetes as defined by fasting plasma glucose or by HbA(1c). The AusDiab, Inter99 and DESIR studies. Diabetic Medicine 2011;28(11):1311‐8. CENTRAL

Eskesen 2013 {published data only}

Eskesen K, Jensen MT, Galatius S, Vestergaard H, Hildebrandt P, Marott JL, et al. Glycated haemoglobin and the risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes and all‐cause mortality in the Copenhagen city heart study. Journal of Internal Medicine 2013;273(1):94‐101. CENTRAL

Feizi 2017 {published data only}

Feizi A, Meamar R, Eslamian M, Amini M, Nasri M, Iraj B. Area under the curve during OGTT in first‐degree relatives of diabetic patients as an efficient indicator of future risk of type 2 diabetes and prediabetes. Clinical Endocrinology 2017;87(6):696‐705. CENTRAL

Feskens 1989 {published data only}

Feskens EJ, Kromhout D. Cardiovascular risk factors and the 25‐year incidence of diabetes mellitus in middle‐aged men. The Zutphen study. American Journal of Epidemiology 1989;130(6):1101‐8. CENTRAL

Festa 2003 {published data only}

Festa A. Inflammation in the prediabetic state is related to increased insulin resistance rather than decreased insulin secretion. Circulation 2003;108(15):1822‐30. CENTRAL

Folsom 2000 {published data only}

Folsom AR, Kushi LH, Hong CP. Physical activity and incident diabetes mellitus in postmenopausal women. American Journal of Public Health 2000;90(1):134‐8. CENTRAL

Gil‐Montalban 2015 {published data only}

Gil‐Montalban E, Martin‐Rios MD, Ortiz‐Marron H, Zorrilla‐Torras B, Martinez‐Cortes M, Esteban‐Vasallo MD, et al. Incidence of type 2 diabetes and associated factors in the adult population of the community of Madrid. PREDIMERC cohort. Revista Clinica Espanola 2015;215(9):495‐502. CENTRAL

Giraldez‐Garcia 2015 {published data only}

Giraldez‐Garcia C, Sangros FJ, Diaz‐Redondo A, Franch‐Nadal J, Serrano R, Diez J, et al. Cardiometabolic risk profiles in patients with impaired fasting glucose and/or hemoglobin A1c 5.7% to 6.4%: evidence for a gradient according to diagnostic criteria: the PREDAPS study. Medicine 2015;94(44):e1935. CENTRAL

Glauber 2018 {published data only}

Glauber H, Vollmer WM, Nichols GA. A simple model for predicting two‐year risk of diabetes development in individuals with prediabetes. Permanente Journal 2018;22:17‐050. [DOI: 10.7812/TPP/17‐050]CENTRAL

Gonzalez‐Villalpando 2014 {published data only}

Gonzalez‐Villalpando C, Davila‐Cervantes CA, Zamora‐Macorra M, Trejo‐Valdivia B, Gonzalez‐Villalpando ME. Risk factors associated to diabetes in Mexican population and phenotype of the individuals who will convert to diabetes. Salud Publica de Mexico 2014;56(4):317‐22. CENTRAL

Gopinath 2013 {published data only}

Gopinath B, Rochtchina E, Flood VM, Mitchell P. Diet quality is prospectively associated with incident impaired fasting glucose in older adults. Diabetic Medicine 2013;30(5):557‐62. CENTRAL

Gu 2015 {published data only}

Gu Y, Warren J, Kennelly J, Walker N, Harwood M. Incidence rate of prediabetes: an analysis of New Zealand primary care data. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics 2015;214:81‐6. CENTRAL

Gupta 2011 {published data only}

Gupta AK, Prieto‐Merino D, Dahlof B, Sever PS, Poulter NR. Metabolic syndrome, impaired fasting glucose and obesity, as predictors of incident diabetes in 14 120 hypertensive patients of ASCOT‐BPLA: comparison of their relative predictability using a novel approach. Diabetic Medicine 2011;28(8):941‐7. CENTRAL

Hackett 2014 {published data only}

Hackett RA, Kivimaki M, Kumari M, Steptoe A. Diurnal cortisol patterns, future diabetes, and impaired glucose metabolism in the Whitehall II cohort study. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism 2016;101(2):619‐25. CENTRAL
Hackett RA, Steptoe A, Kumari M. Association of diurnal patterns in salivary cortisol with type 2 diabetes in the Whitehall II study. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism 2014;99(12):4625‐31. CENTRAL

Haffner 1997 {published data only}

Haffner SM, Miettinen H, Stern MP. Relatively more atherogenic coronary heart disease risk factors in prediabetic women than in prediabetic men. Diabetologia 1997;40(6):711‐7. CENTRAL

Haffner 2000 {published data only}

Haffner SM, Mykkanen L, Festa A, Burke JP, Stern MP. Insulin‐resistant prediabetic subjects have more atherogenic risk factors than insulin‐sensitive prediabetic subjects ‐ implications for preventing coronary heart disease during the prediabetic state. Circulation 2000;101(9):975‐80. CENTRAL

Hajat 2012 {published data only}

Hajat C, Shather Z. Prevalence of metabolic syndrome and prediction of diabetes using IDF versus ATPIII criteria in a Middle East population. Diabetes Research & Clinical Practice 2012;98(3):481‐6. CENTRAL

Hanai 2005 {published data only}

Hanai K, Kiuchi Y, Wasada T. Prevalence and progression of impaired glucose homeostasis assessed by the different criteria for IFG in Japanese adults. Diabetologia 2005;48(4):799‐800. CENTRAL

He 2018 {published data only}

He F. Diets with a low glycaemic load have favourable effects on prediabetes progression and regression: a prospective cohort study. Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics 2018;23:23. CENTRAL

Helmrich 1991 {published data only}

Helmrich SP, Ragland DR, Leung RW, Paffenbarger RS. Physical activity and reduced occurrence of non‐insulin‐dependent diabetes mellitus. New England Journal of Medicine 1991;325(3):147‐52. CENTRAL

Henninger 2015 {published data only}

Henninger J, Hammarstedt A, Rawshani A, Eliasson B. Metabolic predictors of impaired glucose tolerance and type 2 diabetes in a predisposed population ‐ a prospective cohort study. BMC Endocrine Disorders 2015;15:51. CENTRAL

Holbrook 1990 {published data only}

Holbrook TL, Barrett‐Connor E, Wingard DL. A prospective population‐based study of alcohol use and non‐insulin‐dependent diabetes mellitus. American Journal of Epidemiology 1990;132(5):902‐9. CENTRAL

Hong 2016 {published data only}

Hong JL, McNeill AM, He JH, Chen Y, Brodovicz KG. Identification of impaired fasting glucose, healthcare utilization and progression to diabetes in the UK using the clinical practice research datalink (CPRD). Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety 2016;25(12):1375‐86. CENTRAL

Huang 2014c {published data only}

Huang CL, Iqbal U, Nguyen PA, Chen ZF, Clinciu DL, Hsu YHE, et al. Using hemoglobin A1C as a predicting model for time interval from pre‐diabetes progressing to diabetes. PLOS ONE 2014;9(8):e104263. CENTRAL

Hulman 2017 {published data only}

Hulman A, Gujral UP, Narayan KMV, Pradeepa R, Mohan D, Anjana RM, et al. Glucose patterns during the OGTT and risk of future diabetes in an urban Indian population: the CARRS study. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice 2017;126:192‐7. CENTRAL

Inoue 2008 {published data only}

Inoue K, Matsumoto M, Akimoto K. Fasting plasma glucose and HbA1c as risk factors for type 2 diabetes. Diabetic Medicine 2008;25(10):1157‐63. CENTRAL
Kashima S, Inoue K, Matsumoto M, Akimoto K. Low serum creatinine is a type 2 diabetes risk factor in men and women: the Yuport health checkup center cohort study. Diabete & Metabolisme 2017;43(5):460‐4. CENTRAL

Invitti 2006 {published data only}

Invitti C, Gilardini L, Pontiggia B, Morabito F, Mazzilli G, Viberti G. Period prevalence of abnormal glucose tolerance and cardiovascular risk factors among obese children attending an obesity centre in Italy. Nutrition, Metabolism & Cardiovascular Diseases 2006;16(4):256‐62. CENTRAL

Jallut 1990 {published data only}

Jallut D, Golay A, Munger R, Frascarolo P, Schutz Y, Jequier E, et al. Impaired glucose tolerance and diabetes in obesity: a 6‐year follow‐up study of glucose metabolism. Metabolism 1990;39(10):1068‐75. CENTRAL

James 1998 {published data only}

James SA, Jamjoum L, Raghunathan TE, Strogatz DS, Furth ED, Khazanie PG. Physical activity and NIDDM in African‐Americans. The Pitt county study. Diabetes Care 1998;21(4):555‐62. CENTRAL

Jansson 2015 {published data only}

Jansson SP, Fall K, Brus O, Magnuson A, Wandell P, Ostgren CJ, et al. Prevalence and incidence of diabetes mellitus: a nationwide population‐based pharmaco‐epidemiological study in Sweden. Diabetic Medicine 2015;32(10):1319‐28. CENTRAL

Jarrett 1979 {published data only}

Jarrett RJ, Keen H, Fuller JH, McCartney M. Worsening to diabetes in men with impaired glucose tolerance ("borderline diabetes"). Diabetologia 1979;16(1):25‐30. CENTRAL

Jarrett 1982 {published data only}

Jarrett RJ, McCartney P, Keen H. The Bedford survey: ten year mortality rates in newly diagnosed diabetics, borderline diabetics and normoglycaemic controls and risk indices for coronary heart disease in borderline diabetics. Diabetologia 1982;22(2):79‐84. CENTRAL

Jeanne 2018 {published data only}

Jeanne TL, Hooker ER, Nguyen T, Messer LC, Sacks RM, Andrea SB, et al. High birth weight modifies association between adolescent physical activity and cardiometabolic health in women and not men. Preventive Medicine 2018;108:29‐35. CENTRAL

Jiamjarasrangsi 2008b {published data only}

Jiamjarasrangsi W, Lohsoonthorn V, Lertmaharit S, Sangwatanaroj S. Incidence and predictors of abnormal fasting plasma glucose among the university hospital employees in Thailand. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice 2008;79(2):343‐9. CENTRAL

Joshipura 2017 {published data only}

Joshipura KJ, Munoz‐Torres FJ, Campos M, Rivera‐Diaz AD, Zevallos JC. Association between within‐visit systolic blood pressure variability and development of pre‐diabetes and diabetes among overweight/obese individuals. Journal of Human Hypertension 2017;32(1):26‐33. CENTRAL

Kadowaki 1984 {published data only}

Kadowaki T, Miyake Y, Hagura R, Akanuma Y, Kajinuma H, Kuzuya N, et al. Risk factors for worsening to diabetes in subjects with impaired glucose tolerance. Diabetologia 1984;26(1):44‐9. CENTRAL

Kametani 2002 {published data only}

Kametani T, Koshida H, Nagaoka T, Miyakoshi H. Hypertriglyceridemia is an independent risk factor for development of impaired fasting glucose and diabetes mellitus: a 9‐year longitudinal study in Japanese. Internal Medicine 2002;41(7):516‐21. CENTRAL

Kanauchi 2003 {published data only}

Kanauchi M, Nakajima M, Saito Y, Kanauchi K. Pancreatic beta‐cell function and insulin sensitivity in Japanese subjects with impaired glucose tolerance and newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus. Metabolism 2003;52(4):476‐81. CENTRAL

Kanaya 2005 {published data only}

Kanaya AM, Wassel Fyr CL, de Rekeneire N, Shorr RI, Schwartz AV, Goodpaster BH, et al. Predicting the development of diabetes in older adults: the derivation and validation of a prediction rule. Diabetes Care 2005;28(2):404‐8. CENTRAL

Kawahara 2015 {published data only}

Kawahara T, Imawatari R, Kawahara C, Inazu T, Suzuki G. Incidence of type 2 diabetes in pre‐diabetic Japanese individuals categorized by HbA1c levels: a historical cohort study. PLOS ONE 2015;10(4):e0122698. CENTRAL

Khan 2017 {published data only}

Khan T, Tsipas S, Wozniak G. Medical care expenditures for individuals with prediabetes: the potential cost savings in reducing the risk of developing diabetes. Population Health Management 2017;20(5):389‐96. CENTRAL

Khang 2010 {published data only}

Khang YH, Cho Sl, Kim HR. Risks for cardiovascular disease, stroke, ischaemic heart disease, and diabetes mellitus associated with the metabolic syndrome using the new harmonised definition: findings from nationally representative longitudinal data from an Asian population. Atherosclerosis 2010;213(2):579‐85. CENTRAL

Kieboom 2017 {published data only}

Kieboom BCT, Ligthart S, Dehghan A, Kurstjens S, de Baaij JHF, Franco OH, et al. Serum magnesium and the risk of prediabetes: a population‐based cohort study. Diabetologia 2017;60(5):843‐53. CENTRAL

Kim 2012a {published data only}

Kim TN, Park MS, Lee SK, Yang SJ, Lee KW, Nam M, et al. Elevated A1C is associated with impaired early‐phase insulin secretion rather than insulin resistance in Koreans at high risk for developing diabetes. Endocrine 2012;42(3):584‐91. CENTRAL

Kim 2012b {published data only}

Kim HK, Bae SJ, Choe J. Impact of HbA1c criterion on the detection of subjects with increased risk for diabetes among health check‐up recipients in Korea. Diabetes & Metabolism Journal 2012;36(2):151‐6. CENTRAL

Kim 2013 {published data only}

Kim JY, Goran MI, Toledo‐Corral CM, Weigensberg MJ, Choi M, Shaibi GQ. One‐hour glucose during an oral glucose challenge prospectively predicts beta‐cell deterioration and prediabetes in obese Hispanic youth. Diabetes Care 2013;36(6):1681‐6. CENTRAL

Kim 2016b {published data only}

Kim JD, Kang SJ, Lee MK, Park SE, Rhee EJ, Park CY, et al. C‐peptide‐based index is more related to incident type 2 diabetes in non‐diabetic subjects than insulin‐based index. Endocrinology and Metabolism 2016;31(2):320‐7. CENTRAL

Kim 2017a {published data only}

Kim CW, Chang Y, Sung E, Ryu S. Sleep duration and progression to diabetes in people with prediabetes defined by HbA1c concentration. Diabetic Medicine 2017;34(11):1591‐8. CENTRAL

Kim 2017b {published data only}

Kim NH, Kwon TY, Yu S, Kim NH, Choi KM, Baik SH, et al. Increased vascular disease mortality risk in prediabetic Korean adults is mainly attributable to ischemic stroke. Stroke 2017;48(4):840‐5. CENTRAL

Ko 2000 {published data only}

Ko GT, Chan JC, Tsang LW, Cockram CS. Combined use of fasting plasma glucose and HbA1c predicts the progression to diabetes in Chinese subjects. Diabetes Care 2000;23(12):1770‐3. CENTRAL

Kosaka 1996 {published data only}

Kosaka K, Kuzuya T, Yoshinaga H, Hagura R. A prospective study of health check examinees for the development of non‐insulin‐dependent diabetes mellitus: relationship of the incidence of diabetes with the initial insulinogenic index and degree of obesity. Diabetic Medicine 1996;13(9 Suppl 6):S120‐6. CENTRAL

Kowall 2013 {published data only}

Kowall B, Rathmann W, Giani G, Schipf S, Baumeister S, Wallaschofski H, et al. Random glucose is useful for individual prediction of type 2 diabetes: results of the study of health in Pomerania (SHIP). Primary Care Diabetes 2013;7(1):25‐31. CENTRAL

Krabbe 2017 {published data only}

Krabbe CEM, Schipf S, Ittermann T, Dorr M, Nauck M, Chenot JF, et al. Comparison of traditional diabetes risk scores and HbA1c to predict type 2 diabetes mellitus in a population based cohort study. Journal of Diabetes and Its Complications 2017;31(11):1602‐7. CENTRAL

Le Boudec 2016 {published data only}

Le Boudec J, Marques‐Vidal P, Cornuz J, Clair C. Smoking cessation and the incidence of pre‐diabetes and type 2 diabetes: a cohort study. Journal of Diabetes and Its Complications 2016;30(1):43‐8. CENTRAL

Lee 2014 {published data only}

Lee SH, Kwon HS, Park YM, Ha HS, Jeong SH, Yang HK, et al. Predicting the development of diabetes using the product of triglycerides and glucose: the Chungju metabolic disease cohort (CMC) study. PLOS ONE 2014;9(2):e90430. CENTRAL

Lee 2017 {published data only}

Lee EY, Lee YH, Yi SW, Shin SA, Yi JJ. BMI and all‐cause mortality in normoglycemia, impaired fasting glucose, newly diagnosed diabetes, and prevalent diabetes: a cohort study. Diabetes Care 2017;40(8):1026‐33. CENTRAL

Leite 2009 {published data only}

Leite SA, Anderson RL, Kendall DM, Monk AM, Bergenstal RM. A1C predicts type 2 diabetes and impaired glucose tolerance in a population at risk: the community diabetes prevention project. Diabetology & Metabolic Syndrome 2009;1(1):5. CENTRAL

Li 2011 {published data only}

Li CI, Chien L, Liu CS, Lin WY, Lai MM, Lee CC, et al. Prospective validation of American Diabetes Association risk tool for predicting pre‐diabetes and diabetes in Taiwan‐Taichung community health study. PLOS ONE 2011;6(10):e25906. CENTRAL

Liatis 2014 {published data only}

Liatis S, Sfikakis PP, Tsiakou A, Stathi C, Terpos E, Katsilambros N, et al. Baseline osteocalcin levels and incident diabetes in a 3‐year prospective study of high‐risk individuals. Diabetes & Metabolism 2014;40(3):198‐203. CENTRAL

Libman 2008 {published data only}

Libman IM, Barinas‐Mitchell E, Bartucci A, Robertson R, Arslanian S. Reproducibility of the oral glucose tolerance test in overweight children. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology Metabolism 2008;93(11):4231‐7. CENTRAL

Liu 2017a {published data only}

Liu M, Wang J, Zeng J, Cao X, He Y. Association of NAFLD with diabetes and the impact of BMI changes: a 5‐year cohort study based on 18,507 elderly. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism 2017;102(4):1309‐16. CENTRAL

Liu 2017b {published data only}

Liu TT, Liu DM, Xuan Y, Zhao L, Sun LH, Zhao DD, et al. The association between the baseline bone resorption marker CTX and incident dysglycemia after 4 years. Bone Research 2017;5:17020. CENTRAL

Malmstrom 2018 {published data only}

Malmstrom H, Walldius G, Carlsson S, Grill V, Jungner I, Gudbjornsdottir S, et al. Elevations of metabolic risk factors 20 years or more before diagnosis of type 2 diabetes: experience from the AMORIS study. Diabetes, Obesity & Metabolism 2018;5:05. CENTRAL

Manson 1992 {published data only}

Ajani UA, Hennekens CH, Spelsberg A, Manson JE. Alcohol consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus among US male physicians. Archives of Internal Medicine 2000;160(7):1025‐30. CENTRAL
Manson JE, Nathan DM, Krolewski AS, Stampfer MJ, Willett WC, Hennekens CH. A prospective study of exercise and incidence of diabetes among US male physicians. JAMA 1992;268(1):63‐7. CENTRAL

McNeill 2006 {published data only}

McNeill AM, Katz R, Girman CJ, Rosamond WD, Wagenknecht LE, Barzilay JI, et al. Metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular disease in older people: the cardiovascular health study. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2006;54(9):1317‐24. CENTRAL

McPhillips 1990 {published data only}

McPhillips JB, Barrett‐Connor E, Wingard DL. Cardiovascular disease risk factors prior to the diagnosis of impaired glucose tolerance and non‐insulin‐dependent diabetes mellitus in a community of older adults. American Journal of Epidemiology 1990;131(3):443‐53. CENTRAL

Medalie 1975 {published data only}

Herman JB, Medalie JH, Kahn HA, Neufeld HN, Riss E, Perlstein T. Diabetes incidence: a two‐year follow‐up of 10,000 men in a survey of ischemic heart disease in Israel. Diabetes 1970;19(12):938‐43. CENTRAL
Kahn HA, Herman JB, Medalie JH, Neufeld HN, Riss E, Goldbourt U. Factors related to diabetes incidence: a multivariate analysis of two years observation on 10,000 men. The Israel ischemic heart disease study. Journal of Chronic Diseases 1971;23(9):617‐29. CENTRAL
Medalie JH, Papier C, Herman JB, Goldbourt U, Tamir S, Neufeld HN, et al. Diabetes mellitus among 10,000 adult men. I. Five‐year incidence and associated variables. Israel Journal of Medical Sciences 1974;10(7):681‐97. CENTRAL
Medalie JH, Papier CM, Goldbourt U, Herman JB. Major factors in the development of diabetes mellitus in 10,000 men. Archives of Internal Medicine 1975;135(6):811‐7. CENTRAL

Metcalf 2017 {published data only}

Metcalf PA, Kyle C, Kenealy T, Jackson RT. HbA1c in relation to incident diabetes and diabetes‐related complications in non‐diabetic adults at baseline. Journal of Diabetes and Its Complications 2017;31(5):814‐23. CENTRAL

Miranda 2017 {published data only}

Miranda ER, Somal VS, Mey JT, Blackburn BK, Wang E, Farabi S, et al. Circulating soluble RAGE isoforms are attenuated in obese, impaired‐glucose‐tolerant individuals and are associated with the development of type 2 diabetes. American Journal of Physiology. Endocrinology and Metabolism 2017;313(6):E631‐40. CENTRAL

Mirbolouk 2016 {published data only}

Mirbolouk M, Hajebrahimi MA, Akbarpour S, Tohidi M, Azizi F, Hadaegh F. Different glucose tolerance status and incident cardiovascular disease and all‐cause mortality among elderly Iranians. Geriatrics & Gerontology International 2016;16:1263‐71. CENTRAL

Monesi 2012 {published data only}

Monesi L, Baviera M, Marzona I, Avanzini F, Monesi G, Nobili A, et al. Prevalence, incidence and mortality of diagnosed diabetes: evidence from an Italian population‐based study. Diabetic Medicine 2012;29(3):385‐92. CENTRAL

Morrison 2012 {published data only}

Morrison JA, Glueck CJ, Wang P. Childhood risk factors predict cardiovascular disease, impaired fasting glucose plus type 2 diabetes mellitus, and high blood pressure 26 years later at a mean age of 38 years: the Princeton‐lipid research clinics follow‐up study. Metabolism: Clinical and Experimental 2012;61(4):531‐41. CENTRAL

Nakagami 2017 {published data only}

Nakagami T, Takahashi K, Suto C, Oya J, Tanaka Y, Kurita M, et al. Diabetes diagnostic thresholds of the glycated hemoglobin A1c and fasting plasma glucose levels considering the 5‐year incidence of retinopathy. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice 2017;124:20‐9. CENTRAL

Nakasone 2017 {published data only}

Nakasone Y, Miyakoshi T, Sato Y, Yamauchi K, Hashikura R, Takayama M, et al. Impact of weight gain on the evolution and regression of prediabetes: a quantitative analysis. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2017;13(71):206‐11. CENTRAL

Nano 2017 {published data only}

Nano J, Muka T, Ligthart S, Hofman A, Darwish Murad S, Janssen HLA, et al. Gamma‐glutamyltransferase levels, prediabetes and type 2 diabetes: a Mendelian randomization study. International Journal of Epidemiology 2017;46(5):1400‐9. CENTRAL

Nguyen 2014 {published data only}

Nguyen QC, Whitsel EA, Tabor JW, Cuthbertson CC, Wener MH, Potter AJ, et al. Blood spot‐based measures of glucose homeostasis and diabetes prevalence in a nationally representative population of young US adults. Annals of Epidemiology 2014;24(12):903‐9.e1. CENTRAL

Nichols 2007 {published data only}

Nichols GA, Hillier TA, Brown JB. Progression from newly acquired impaired fasting glucose to type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2007;30(2):228‐33. CENTRAL

Nichols 2010 {published data only}

Nichols Gregory A, Moler Edward J. Diabetes incidence for all possible combinations of metabolic syndrome components. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice 2010;90(1):115‐21. CENTRAL

Nichols 2015 {published data only}

Nichols GA, Schroeder EB, Karter AJ, Gregg EW, Desai J, Lawrence JM, et al. Trends in diabetes incidence among 7 million insured adults, 2006‐2011: the SUPREME‐DM project. American Journal of Epidemiology 2015;181(1):32‐9. CENTRAL

Njolstad 1998 {published data only}

Njolstad I, Arnesen E, Lund‐Larsen P G. Sex differences in risk factors for clinical diabetes mellitus in a general population: a 12‐year follow‐up of the Finnmark Study. American Journal of Epidemiology 1998;147(1):49‐58. CENTRAL

Norberg 2006 {published data only}

Norberg M, Eriksson JW, Lindahl B, Andersson C, Rolandsson O, Stenlund H, et al. A combination of HbA1c, fasting glucose and BMI is effective in screening for individuals at risk of future type 2 diabetes: OGTT is not needed. Journal of Internal Medicine 2006;260(3):263‐71. CENTRAL

Nowicka 2011 {published data only}

Nowicka P, Santoro N, Liu H, Lartaud D, Shaw MM, Goldberg R, et al. Utility of hemoglobin A(1c) for diagnosing prediabetes and diabetes in obese children and adolescents. Diabetes Care 2011;34(6):1306‐11. CENTRAL

Ohlson 1987 {published data only}

Ohlson LO, Larsson B, Bjorntorp P, Eriksson H, Svardsudd K, Welin L, et al. Risk factors for type 2 (non‐insulin‐dependent) diabetes mellitus. Thirteen and one‐half years of follow‐up of the participants in a study of Swedish men born in 1913. Diabetologia 1988;31(11):798‐805. CENTRAL
Ohlson LO, Larsson B, Eriksson H, Svardsudd K, Welin L, Tibblin G. Diabetes mellitus in Swedish middle‐aged men. The study of men born in 1913 and 1923. Diabetologia 1987;30(6):386‐93. CENTRAL

Oizumi 2011 {published data only}

Nakagami T, Tominaga M, Nishimura R, Yoshiike N, Daimon M, Oizumi T, et al. Is the measurement of glycated hemoglobin A1c alone an efficient screening test for undiagnosed diabetes? Japan National Diabetes Survey. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice 2007;76(2):251‐6. CENTRAL
Oizumi T, Daimon M, Karasawa S, Kaino W, Takase K, Jimbu Y, et al. Assessment of plasma glucose cutoff values to predict the development of type 2 diabetes in a Japanese sample: the Funagata study. Diabetology International 2011;2(1):26‐31. CENTRAL

Okada 2017 {published data only}

Okada R, Tsushita K, Wakai K, Ishizaka Y, Kato K, Wada T, et al. Lower risk of progression from prediabetes to diabetes with health checkup with lifestyle education: Japan Ningen Dock study. Nutrition, Metabolism & Cardiovascular Diseases 2017;27(8):679‐87. CENTRAL

Onat 2007 {published data only}

Onat A, Hergenc G, Can G. Prospective validation in identical Turkish cohort of two metabolic syndrome definitions for predicting cardiometabolic risk and selection of most appropriate definition. Anadolu Kardiyoloji Dergisi ‐ the Anatolian Journal of Cardiology 2007;7(1):29‐34. CENTRAL

Onat 2013a {published data only}

Onat A, Can G, Cicek G, Ayhan E, Dogan Y, Kaya H. Fasting, non‐fasting glucose and HDL dysfunction in risk of pre‐diabetes, diabetes, and coronary disease in non‐diabetic adults. Acta Diabetologica 2013;50(4):519‐28. CENTRAL

Onat 2013b {published data only}

Onat A, Aydin M, Can G, Cakmak HA, Koroglu B, Kaya A, et al. Impaired fasting glucose: pro‐diabetic, "atheroprotective" and modified by metabolic syndrome. World Journal of Diabetes 2013;4(5):210‐8. CENTRAL

Osei 2004 {published data only}

Osei K, Rhinesmith S, Gaillard T, Schuster D. Impaired insulin sensitivity, insulin secretion, and glucose effectiveness predict future development of impaired glucose tolerance and type 2 diabetes in pre‐diabetic African Americans: implications for primary diabetes prevention. Diabetes Care 2004;27(6):1439‐46. CENTRAL

Paddock 2017 {published data only}

Paddock E, Hohenadel MG, Piaggi P, Vijayakumar P, Hanson RL, Knowler WC, et al. One‐hour and two‐hour postload plasma glucose concentrations are comparable predictors of type 2 diabetes mellitus in Southwestern Native Americans. Diabetologia 2017;60(9):1704‐11. CENTRAL

Perry 1995 {published data only}

Perry IJ, Wannamethee SG, Walker MK, Thomson AG, Whincup PH, Shaper AG. Prospective study of risk factors for development of non‐insulin dependent diabetes in middle aged British men. BMJ 1995;310(6979):560‐4. CENTRAL
Sattar N, McConnachie A, Shaper AG, Blauw GJ, Buckley BM, de Craen AJ, et al. Can metabolic syndrome usefully predict cardiovascular disease and diabetes? Outcome data from two prospective studies. Lancet 2008;371(9628):1927‐35. CENTRAL
Shaper AG, Pocock SJ, Walker M, Cohen NM, Wale CJ, Thomson AG. British regional heart study: cardiovascular risk factors in middle‐aged men in 24 towns. British Medical Journal 1981;283(6285):179‐86. CENTRAL
Wannamethee SG. The metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular risk in the British regional heart study. International Journal of Obesity 2008;32(Suppl 2):S25‐9. CENTRAL
Wannamethee SG, Papacosta O, Whincup PH, Thomas MC, Carson C, Lawlor DA, et al. The potential for a two‐stage diabetes risk algorithm combining non‐laboratory‐based scores with subsequent routine non‐fasting blood tests: results from prospective studies in older men and women. Diabetic Medicine 2011;28(1):23‐30. CENTRAL

Pinelli 2011 {published data only}

Pinelli NR, Jantz AS, Martin ET, Jaber LA. Sensitivity and specificity of glycated hemoglobin as a diagnostic test for diabetes and prediabetes in Arabs. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 2011;96(10):E1680‐3. CENTRAL

Polakowska 2011 {published data only}

Polakowska M, Piotrowski W. Incidence of diabetes in the Polish population: results of the multicenter Polish population health status study ‐ WOBASZ. Polskie Archiwum Medycyny Wewnetrznej 2011;121(5):156‐63. CENTRAL

Pradhan 2007 {published data only}

Pradhan AD, Rifai N, Buring JE, Ridker PM. Hemoglobin A1c predicts diabetes but not cardiovascular disease in nondiabetic women. American Journal of Medicine 2007;120(8):720‐7. CENTRAL

Priya 2013 {published data only}

Priya M, Anjana RM, Chiwanga FS, Gokulakrishnan K, Deepa M, Mohan V. 1‐hour venous plasma glucose and incident prediabetes and diabetes in Asian Indians. Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics 2013;15(6):497‐502. CENTRAL

Qiao 2003 {published data only}

Qiao Q, Lindstrom J, Valle TT, Tuomilehto J. Progression to clinically diagnosed and treated diabetes from impaired glucose tolerance and impaired fasting glycaemia. Diabetic Medicine 2003;20(12):1027‐33. CENTRAL

Qiu 2015 {published data only}

Qiu M, Shen W, Song X, Ju L, Tong W, Wang H, et al. Effects of prediabetes mellitus alone or plus hypertension on subsequent occurrence of cardiovascular disease and diabetes mellitus: longitudinal study. Hypertension 2015;65(3):525‐30. CENTRAL

Ramachandran 2012 {published data only}

Ramachandran A, Snehalatha C, Samith Shetty A, Nanditha A. Predictive value of HbA1c for incident diabetes among subjects with impaired glucose tolerance ‐ analysis of the Indian diabetes prevention programmes. Diabetic Medicine 2012;29(1):94‐8. CENTRAL

Rauh 2017 {published data only}

Rauh SP, Heymans MW, Koopman AD, Nijpels G, Stehouwer CD, Thorand B, et al. Predicting glycated hemoglobin levels in the non‐diabetic general population: development and validation of the DIRECT‐DETECT prediction model ‐ a DIRECT study. PLOS ONE 2017;12(2):e0171816. CENTRAL

Reynolds 2006 {published data only}

Reynolds SS, Yanek LR, Vaidya D, Mora S, Moy TF, Saudek CD, et al. Glucose levels in the normal range predict incident diabetes in families with premature coronary heart disease. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice 2006;74(3):267‐73. CENTRAL

Rimm 1995 {published data only}

Rimm EB, Chan J, Stampfer MJ, Colditz GA, Willett WC. Prospective study of cigarette smoking, alcohol use, and the risk of diabetes in men. BMJ 1995;310(6979):555‐9. CENTRAL

Sacks 2017 {published data only}

Sacks RM, Greene J, Hibbard J, Overton V, Parrotta CD. Does patient activation predict the course of type 2 diabetes? A longitudinal study. Patient Education and Counselling 2017;100(7):1268‐75. CENTRAL

Sai 2017 {published data only}

Sai Prasanna N, Amutha A, Pramodkumar TA, Anjana RM, Venkatesan U, Priya M, et al. The 1h post glucose value best predicts future dysglycemia among normal glucose tolerance subjects. Journal of Diabetes and Its Complications 2017;31(11):1592‐6. CENTRAL

Samaras 2015 {published data only}

Samaras K, Crawford J, Lutgers HL, Campbell LV, Baune BT, Lux O, et al. Metabolic burden and disease and mortality risk associated with impaired fasting glucose in elderly adults. Journal of American Geriatrics Society 2015;63(7):1435‐42. CENTRAL

Schmitz 2016 {published data only}

Schmitz N, Deschenes SS, Burns RJ, Smith KJ, Lesage A, Strychar I, et al. Depression and risk of type 2 diabetes: the potential role of metabolic factors. Molecular Psychiatry 2016;21(12):1726‐32. CENTRAL

Schottker 2011 {published data only}

Schottker B, Raum E, Rothenbacher D, Muller H, Brenner H. Prognostic value of haemoglobin A1c and fasting plasma glucose for incident diabetes and implications for screening. European Journal of Epidemiology 2011;26(10):779‐87. CENTRAL

Schulze 2008 {published data only}

Schulze MB, Boeing H, Haring HU, Fritsche A, Joost HG. Validation of the German diabetes risk score with metabolic risk factors for type 2 diabetes [Validierung des Deutschen Diabetes‐Risiko‐Scores mit metabolischen Risikofaktoren für Typ‐2‐Diabetes]. Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift 2008;133(17):878‐83. CENTRAL

Schwarz 2007 {published data only}

Schwarz PEH, Bornstein SR, Hanefeld M. Elevated fasting glucose levels predicts IGT and diabetes also in middle‐age subjects. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice 2007;77(1):148‐50. CENTRAL

Serrano 2013 {published data only}

Serrano R, Garcia‐Soidan FJ, Diaz‐Redondo A, Artola S, Franch J, Diez J, et al. Cohort study in primary health care on the evolution of patients with prediabetes (PREDAPS): basis and methodology. Revista Española Salud Publica 2013;87(2):121‐35. CENTRAL

Shimazaki 2007 {published data only}

Shimazaki T, Kadowaki T, Ohyama Y, Ohe K, Kubota K. Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) predicts future drug treatment for diabetes mellitus: a follow‐up study using routine clinical data in a Japanese university hospital. Translational Research 2007;149(4):196‐204. CENTRAL

Song 2007 {published data only}

Song KH, Nam‐Goomg IS, Han SM, Kim MS, Lee EJ, Lee YS, et al. Change in prevalence and 6‐year incidence of diabetes and impaired fasting glucose in Korean subjects living in a rural area. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice 2007;78(3):378‐84. CENTRAL

Song 2016b {published data only}

Song YS, Hwang YC, Ahn HY, Park CY. Comparison of the usefulness of the updated homeostasis model assessment (HOMA2) with the original HOMA1 in the prediction of type 2 diabetes mellitus in Koreans. Diabetes & Metabolism Journal 2016;40(4):318‐25. CENTRAL

Sorgjerd 2015 {published data only}

Sorgjerd EP, Thorsby PM, Torjesen PA, Skorpen F, Kvaloy K, Grill V. Presence of anti‐GAD in a non‐diabetic population of adults; time dynamics and clinical influence: results from the HUNT study. BMJ Open Diabetes Research and Care 2015;3:e000076. [DOI: 10.1136/bmjdrc‐2014‐000076]CENTRAL

Soria 2009 {published data only}

Soria ML, Sy RG, Vega BS, Ty‐Willing T, Abenir‐Gallardo A, Velandria F, et al. The incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus in the Philippines: a 9‐year cohort study. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice 2009;86(2):130‐3. CENTRAL

Stampfer 1988 {published data only}

Manson JE, Rimm EB, Stampfer MJ, Colditz GA, Willett WC, Krolewski AS, et al. Physical activity and incidence of non‐insulin‐dependent diabetes mellitus in women. Lancet 1991;338(8770):774‐8. CENTRAL
Rimm EB, Manson JE, Stampfer MJ, Colditz GA, Willett WC, Rosner B, et al. Cigarette smoking and the risk of diabetes in women. American Journal of Public Health 1993;83(2):211‐4. CENTRAL
Stampfer MJ, Colditz GA, Willett WC, Manson JE, Arky RA, Hennekens CH, et al. A prospective study of moderate alcohol drinking and risk of diabetes in women. American Journal of Epidemiology 1988;128(3):549‐58. CENTRAL

Strauss 1974 {published data only}

Strauss WT, Hales CN. Plasma insulin in minor abnormalities of glucose tolerance: a 5 year follow‐up. Diabetologia 1974;10(3):237‐43. CENTRAL

Suvitaival 2018 {published data only}

Suvitaival T, Bondia‐Pons I, Yetukuri L, Poho P, Nolan JJ, Hyotylainen T, et al. Lipidome as a predictive tool in progression to type 2 diabetes in Finnish men. Metabolism 2018;78:1‐12. CENTRAL

Tabak 2009 {published data only}

Tabak AG, Jokela M, Akbaraly TN, Brunner EJ, Kivimaki M, Witte DR. Trajectories of glycaemia, insulin sensitivity, and insulin secretion before diagnosis of type 2 diabetes: an analysis from the Whitehall II study. Lancet 2009;373(9682):2215‐21. CENTRAL

Tai 2004 {published data only}

Tai ES, Goh SY, Lee JJ, Wong MS, Heng D, Hughes K, et al. Lowering the criterion for impaired fasting glucose: impact on disease prevalence and associated risk of diabetes and ischemic heart disease. Diabetes Care 2004;27(7):1728‐34. CENTRAL

Takkunen 2016 {published data only}

Takkunen MJ, Schwab US, de Mello VD, Eriksson JG, Lindstrom J, Tuomilehto J, et al. Longitudinal associations of serum fatty acid composition with type 2 diabetes risk and markers of insulin secretion and sensitivity in the Finnish diabetes prevention study. European Journal of Nutrition 2016;55(3):967‐79. CENTRAL

Tanabe 2009 {published data only}

Tanabe N, Saito K, Yamada Y, Takasawa T, Seki N, Suzuki H. Risk assessment by post‐challenge plasma glucose, insulin response ratio, and other indices of insulin resistance and/or secretion for predicting the development of type 2 diabetes. Internal Medicine 2009;48(6):401‐9. CENTRAL

Vaccaro 2005 {published data only}

Vaccaro O, Riccardi G. Changing the definition of impaired fasting glucose: impact on the classification of individuals and risk definition. Diabetes Care 2005;28(7):1786‐8. CENTRAL

Vaidya 2016 {published data only}

Vaidya A, Cui L, Sun L, Lu B, Chen S, Liu X, et al. A prospective study of impaired fasting glucose and type 2 diabetes in China: the Kailuan study. Medicine 2016;95(46):e5350. CENTRAL

Vazquez 2000 {published data only}

Vazquez JA, Gaztambide S, Soto‐Pedre E. 10‐year prospective study on the incidence and risk factors for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Medicina Clinica 2000;115(14):534‐9. CENTRAL

Vega‐Vázquez 2017 {published data only}

Vega‐Vázquez MA, Ramírez‐Vick M, Muñoz‐Torres FJ, González‐Rodríguez LA, Joshipura K. Comparing glucose and hemoglobin A1c diagnostic tests among a high metabolic risk Hispanic population. Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews 2017;33(4):e2874. [DOI: 10.1002/dmrr.2874]CENTRAL

Von Eckardstein 2000 {published data only}

Von Eckardstein A, Schulte H, Assmann G. Risk for diabetes mellitus in middle‐aged Caucasian male participants of the PROCAM study: implications for the definition of impaired fasting glucose by the American Diabetes Association. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism 2000;85(9):3101‐8. CENTRAL

Wang 2010 {published data only}

Wang Z, Hoy W E, Si D. Incidence of type 2 diabetes in Aboriginal Australians: an 11‐year prospective cohort study. BMC Public Health 2010;10:487. CENTRAL

Warram 1996 {published data only}

Warram JH, Sigal RJ, Martin BC, Krolewski AS, Soeldner JS. Natural history of impaired glucose tolerance: follow‐up at Joslin Clinic. Diabetic Medicine 1996;13(9 Suppl 6):S40‐5. CENTRAL

Wei 1999 {published data only}

Wei M, Gibbons LW, Mitchell TL, Kampert JB, Lee CD, Blair SN. The association between cardiorespiratory fitness and impaired fasting glucose and type 2 diabetes mellitus in men. Annals of Internal Medicine 1999;130(2):89‐96. CENTRAL

Welborn 1979 {published data only}

Welborn TA, Wearne K. Coronary heart disease incidence and cardiovascular mortality in Busselton with reference to glucose and insulin concentrations. Diabetes Care 1979;2(2):154‐60. CENTRAL

Wheeler 2017 {published data only}

Wheeler E, Leong A, Liu CT, Hivert MF, Strawbridge RJ, Podmore C, et al. Impact of common genetic determinants of hemoglobin A1c on type 2 diabetes risk and diagnosis in ancestrally diverse populations: a transethnic genome‐wide meta‐analysis. PLOS Medicine2017; Vol. 14:e1002383. CENTRAL

Wingard 1993 {published data only}

Wingard DL, Barrett‐Connor EL, Scheidt‐Nave C, McPhillips JB. Prevalence of cardiovascular and renal complications in older adults with normal or impaired glucose tolerance or NIDDM. A population‐based study. Diabetes Care 1993;16(7):1022‐5. CENTRAL

Woo 2015 {published data only}

Woo YC, Cheung BM, Yeung CY, Lee CH, Hui EY, Fong CH, et al. Cardiometabolic risk profile of participants with prediabetes diagnosed by HbA1c criteria in an urban Hong Kong Chinese population over 40 years of age. Diabetic Medicine 2015;32(9):1207‐11. CENTRAL

Wu 2017a {published data only}

Wu J, Gong L, Li Q, Hu J, Zhang S, Wang Y, et al. A novel visceral adiposity index for prediction of type 2 diabetes and pre‐diabetes in Chinese adults: a 5‐year prospective study. Scientific Reports 2017;7(1):13784. CENTRAL

Wu 2017b {published data only}

Wu J, Ward E, Threatt T, Lu ZK. Progression to type 2 diabetes and its effect on health care costs in low‐income and insured patients with prediabetes: a retrospective study using Medicaid claims data. Journal of Managed Care & Speciality Pharmacy 2017;23(3):309‐16. CENTRAL

Wu 2018 {published data only}

Wu F, Juonala M, Pitkanen N, Jula A, Lehtimaki T, Sabin MA, et al. Both youth and long‐term vitamin D status is associated with risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus in adulthood: a cohort study. Annals of Medicine 2018;50(1):74‐82. CENTRAL

Xu 2014 {published data only}

Xu L, Jiang CQ, Schooling CM, Zhang WS, Cheng KK, Lam TH. Prediction of 4‐year incident diabetes in older Chinese: recalibration of the Framingham diabetes score on Guangzhou biobank cohort study. Preventive Medicine 2014;69:63‐8. CENTRAL

Yang 2016 {published data only}

Yang HK, Ha HS, Rhee M, Lee JH, Park YM, Kwon HS, et al. Predictive value of glucose parameters obtained from oral glucose tolerance tests in identifying individuals at high risk for the development of diabetes in Korean population. Medicine 2016;95(10):e3053. CENTRAL

Ye 2014 {published data only}

Ye X, Zong G, Liu X, Liu G, Gan W, Zhu J, et al. Development of a new risk score for incident type 2 diabetes using updated diagnostic criteria in middle‐aged and older Chinese. PLOS ONE 2014;9(5):e97042. CENTRAL

Yi 2017 {published data only}

Yi SW, Park S, Lee YH, Park HJ, Balkau B, Yi JJ. Association between fasting glucose and all‐cause mortality according to sex and age: a prospective cohort study. Scientific Reports 2017;7(1):8194. CENTRAL

Yokota 2017 {published data only}

Yokota N, Miyakoshi T, Sato Y, Nakasone Y, Yamashita K, Imai T, et al. Predictive models for conversion of prediabetes to diabetes. Journal of Diabetes and Its Complications 2017;31(8):1266‐71. CENTRAL

Yoshinaga 1996 {published data only}

Yoshinaga H, Kosaka K. High glycosylated hemoglobin levels increase the risk of progression to diabetes mellitus in subjects with glucose intolerance. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice 1996;31(1‐3):71‐9. CENTRAL

Yoshinaga 1999 {published data only}

Yoshinaga H, Kosaka K. Heterogeneous relationship of early insulin response and fasting insulin level with development of non‐insulin‐dependent diabetes mellitus in non‐diabetic Japanese subjects with or without obesity. Diabetes Research & Clinical Practice 1999;44(2):129‐36. CENTRAL

Zargar 2001 {published data only}

Zargar AH, Masoodi SR, Khan AK, Bashir MI, Laway BA, Wani AI, et al. Impaired fasting glucose and impaired glucose tolerance ‐ lack of agreement between the two categories in a North Indian population. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice 2001;51(2):145‐9. CENTRAL

Zethelius 2008 {published data only}

Zethelius B, Berglund L, Hanni A, Berne C. The interaction between impaired acute insulin response and insulin resistance predicts type 2 diabetes and impairment of fasting glucose. Upsala Journal of Medical Sciences 2008;113(2):117‐29. CENTRAL

Zhang 2012b {published data only}

Zhang M, Gao Y, Chang H, Wang X, Liu D, Zhu Z, et al. Hypertriglyceridemic‐waist phenotype predicts diabetes: a cohort study in Chinese urban adults. BMC Public Health 2012;12:1081. CENTRAL

Zhang 2016 {published data only}

Zhang T, Li Y, Zhang HJ, Sun DJY, Li SX, Fernandez C, et al. Insulin‐sensitive adiposity is associated with a relatively lower risk of diabetes than insulin‐resistant adiposity: the Bogalusa heart study. Endocrine 2016;54(1):93‐100. CENTRAL

Zimmet 1992 {published data only}

Zimmet PZ, Collins VR, Dowse GK, Knight LT. Hyperinsulinaemia in youth is a predictor of type 2 (non‐insulin‐dependent) diabetes mellitus. Diabetologia 1992;35(6):534‐41. CENTRAL

References to studies awaiting assessment

Ir a:

Li 2001 {published data only}

Li G, Wang J, Chen C. [Model of development of diabetes mellitus in adult Chinese]. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi [National Medical Journal of China] 2001;81(15):914‐7. CENTRAL

Misnikova 2011 {published data only}

Misnikova IV, Dreval AV, Barsukov IA, Dzebisashvili TG. Risk of diabetes and cardiovascular events in persons with early glucose metabolism impairments. Diabetologia 2011;54(Suppl 1):S119. CENTRAL

NCT00816608 {published data only}

NCT00816608. The effect of maximum body weight in lifetime on the development of type 2 diabetes (MAXWEL) [Study of MAXimum Weight in Lifetime on glucose homeostasis (MAXWEL)]. clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00816608 (first received 1 January 2009). CENTRAL

NCT00786890 {unpublished data only}

NCT00786890. A survey to evaluate the cardiovascular risk status of subjects with pre‐diabetes in Hong Kong (JADE‐HK2). clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00786890 (accessed 1 November 2017). CENTRAL

NCT02838693 {unpublished data only}

NCT02838693. Assessing progression to type‐2 diabetes (APT‐2D): a prospective cohort study expanded from BRITE‐SPOT (bio‐bank and registry for stratIfication and targeted interventions in the spectrum of type 2 diabetes) (APT‐2D). clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT02838693 (accessed 1 November 2017). CENTRAL

NCT02958579 {unpublished data only}

NCT02958579. A population based study on metabolic syndrome complications, and mortality (MetSCoM). clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT02958579 (accessed 1 November 2017). CENTRAL

Vilanova 2017 {published data only}

Vilanova MB, Falguera M, Marsal JR, Rubinat E, Alcubierre N, Castelblanco E, et al. Prevalence, clinical features and risk assessment of pre‐diabetes in Spain: the prospective Mollerussa cohort study. BMJ Open 2017;7(6):e015158. CENTRAL

Abdul‐Ghani 2006

Abdul‐Ghani MA, Jenkinson CP, Richardson DK, Tripathy D, DeFronzo RA. Insulin secretion and action in subjects with impaired fasting glucose and impaired glucose tolerance: results from the Veterans administration genetic epidemiology study. Diabetes 2006;55(5):1430‐5. [PUBMED: 16644701]

ADA 1997

The Expert Committee on the Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus. Report of the expert committee on the diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care 1997;20(7):1183‐97.

ADA 2003

Expert Committee on the Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus. Report of the expert committee on the diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care 2003;26(Suppl 1):S5‐20.

ADA 2010

American Diabetes Association. Diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care 2010;33(Suppl 1):S62‐9. [PUBMED: 20042775]

Altman 2001

Altman D G. Systematic reviews of evaluations of prognostic variables. BMJ 2001;323:224‐8.

Avilés‐Santa 2016

Avilés‐Santa ML, Hsu LL, Arredondo M, Menke A, Werner E, Thyagarajan B, et al. Differences in hemoglobin A1c between Hispanics/Latinos and non‐Hispanic whites: an analysis of the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos and the 2007‐2012 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Diabetes Care 2016;39(6):1010‐7.

Borenstein 2017a

Borenstein M, Higgins JP, Hedges LV, Rothstein HR. Basics of meta‐analysis: I2 is not an absolute measure of heterogeneity. Research Synthesis Methods 2017;8(1):5‐18.

Borenstein 2017b

Borenstein M. Prediction intervals. www.meta‐analysis.com/prediction (accessed 3 March 2018).

Buse 2009

Buse JB, Caprio S, Cefalu WT, Ceriello A, Del Prato S, Inzucchi SE, et al. How do we define cure of diabetes?. Diabetes Care 2009;32:2133‐5.

Buysschaert 2011

Buysschaert M, Bergman M. Definition of prediabetes. Medical Clinics of North America 2011;95:289‐97, vii.

Buysschaert 2016

Buysschaert M, Medina JL, Buysschaert B, Bergman M. Definitions (and current controversies) of diabetes and prediabetes. Current Diabetes Reviews 2016;12:8‐13.

CDC 2015

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2014 National Diabetes Statistics Report. www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pdfs/data/2014‐report‐estimates‐of‐diabetes‐and‐its‐burden‐in‐the‐united‐states.pdf (accessed 3 March 2018).

Cefalu 2016

Cefalu WT. "Prediabetes": Are there problems with this label? No, we need heightened awareness of this condition!. Diabetes Care 2016;39:1472‐7.

Cheng 2006

Cheng C, Kushner H, Falkner BE. The utility of fasting glucose for detection of prediabetes. Metabolism: Clinical and Experimental 2006;55(4):434‐8. [PUBMED: 16546472]

Davidson 2003

Davidson MB, Landsman PB, Alexander CM. Lowering the criterion for impaired fasting glucose will not provide clinical benefit. Diabetes Care 2003;26:3329‐30.

De Rekeneire 2007

De Rekeneire N, Rooks RN, Simonsick EM, Shorr RI, Kuller LH, Schwartz AV, et al. Racial differences in glycemic control in a well‐functioning older diabetic population: Findings from the Health, Aging and Body Composition study. Diabetes Care 2007;26:1986‐92.

Debray 2017

Debray TP, Damen JA, Snell KI, Ensor J, Hooft L, Reitsma JB, et al. A guide to systematic review and meta‐analysis of prediction model performance. BMJ 2017;356:i6460.

DeFronzo 1989

DeFronzo RA, Ferrannini E, Simonson DC. Fasting hyperglycemia in non‐insulin‐dependent diabetes mellitus: contributions of excessive hepatic glucose production and impaired tissue glucose uptake. Metabolism: Clinical and Experimental 1989;38(4):387‐95. [PUBMED: 2657323]

DeFronzo 2011

DeFronzo RA, Abdul‐Ghani MA. Preservation of beta‐cell function: the key to diabetes prevention. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism 2011;96:2354‐66.

Dretzke 2014

Dretzke J, Ensor J, Bayliss S, Hodgkinson J, Lordkipanidze M, Riley RD, et al. Methodological issues and recommendations for systematic reviews of prognostic studies: an example from cardiovascular disease. Systematic Reviews 2014;3:140.

Eastwood 2016

Eastwood SV, Tillin T, Mayet J, Shibata DK, Wright A, Heasman J, et al. Ethnic differences in cross‐sectional associations between impaired glucose regulation, identified by oral glucose tolerance test or HbA1c values, and cardiovascular disease in a cohort of European and South Asian origin. Diabetic Medicine 2016;33:340‐7.

Echouffo‐Tcheugui 2016

Echouffo‐Tcheugui JB, Narayan KM, Weisman D, Golden SH, Jaar BG. Association between prediabetes and risk of chronic kidney disease: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Diabetic Medicine 2016;33(12):1615‐24.

Erqou 2013

Erqou S, Lee CT, Suffoletto M, Echouffo‐Tcheugui JB, de Boer RA, van Melle JP, et al. Association between glycated haemoglobin and the risk of congestive heart failure in diabetes mellitus: systematic review and meta‐analysis. European Journal of Heart Failure 2013;15(2):185‐93.

Ford 2010

Ford ES, Zhao G, Li C. Pre‐diabetes and the risk for cardiovascular disease: a systematic review of the evidence. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2010;55(13):1310‐7.

Freeman 1950

Freeman MF, Tukey JW. Transformations related to the angular and the square root. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 1950;21:607‐11.

Gale 2013

Gale EA. Can NICE prevent diabetes?. Heart 2013;99:824‐6.

Gerstein 2007

Gerstein HC, Santaguida P, Raina P, Morrison KM, Balion C, Hunt D, et al. Annual incidence and relative risk of diabetes in people with various categories of dysglycemia: a systematic overview and meta‐analysis of prospective studies. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice 2007;78(3):305‐12.

Gosmanov 2014

Gosmanov AR, Wan J. Low positive predictive value of hemoglobin A1c for diagnosis of prediabetes in clinical practice. American Journal of the Medical Sciences 2014;348(3):191‐4. [PUBMED: 24556928]

Hanson 2014

Hanson RL, Muller YL, Kobes S, Guo T, Bian L, Ossowski V, et al. A genome‐wide association study in American Indians implicates DNER as a susceptibility locus for type 2 diabetes. Diabetes 2014;63(1):369‐76.

Hasselblad 1994

Hasselblad VV, McCrory DCD. Meta‐analytic tools for medical decision making: a practical guide. Medical Decision Making 1994;15(1):81‐96.

Hayden 2013

Hayden JA, van der Windt DA, Cartwright JL, Cote P, Bombardier C. Assessing bias in studies of prognostic factors. Annals of Internal Medicine 2013;158(4):280‐6.

Hemmingsen 2016a

Hemmingsen B, Krogh J, Metzendorf MI, Richter B. Sodium‐glucose cotransporter (SGLT) 2 inhibitors for prevention or delay of type 2 diabetes mellitus and its associated complications in people at risk for the development of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2016, Issue 4. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012106.pub2]

Hemmingsen 2016b

Hemmingsen B, Krogh J, Metzendorf MI, Richter B. Dipeptidyl‐peptidase (DPP)‐4 inhibitors or glucagon‐like peptide (GLP)‐1 analogues for prevention or delay of type 2 diabetes mellitus and its associated complications in persons at increased risk for the development of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2016, Issue 5. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012204]

Hemmingsen 2016c

Hemmingsen B, Sonne DP, Metzendorf MI, Richter B. Insulin secretagogues for prevention or delay of type 2 diabetes mellitus and its associated complications in persons at increased risk for the development of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2016, Issue 10. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012151.pub2]

Herman 2012

Herman WH, Cohen RM. Racial and ethnic differences in the relationship between HbA1c and blood glucose: implications for the diagnosis of diabetes. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 2012;97(4):1067‐72.

Higgins 2009

Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Spiegelhalter DJ. A re‐evaluation of random‐effects meta‐analysis. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society) 2009;172:137‐59.

Higgins 2011a

Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.

Higgins 2011b

Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC (editors). Section 9.4.8: Meta‐analysis of counts and rates. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.

Hope 2016

Hope C, Robertshaw A, Cheung KL, Idris I, English E. Relationship between HbA1c and cancer in people with or without diabetes: a systematic review. Diabetic Medicine 2016;33(8):1013‐25.

Huang 2014a

Huang Y, Cai X, Qiu M, Chen P, Tang H, Hu Y, et al. Prediabetes and the risk of cancer: a meta‐analysis. Diabetologia 2014;57(11):2261‐9.

Huang 2014b

Huang Y, Cai X, Chen P, Mai W, Tang H, Huang Y, et al. Associations of prediabetes with all‐cause and cardiovascular mortality: a meta‐analysis. Annals of Medicine 2014;46(8):684‐92.

Huang 2016

Huang Y, Cai X, Mai W, Li M, Hu Y. Association between prediabetes and risk of cardiovascular disease and all cause mortality: systematic review and meta‐analysis. BMJ 2016;355:i5953.

Huguet 2013

Huguet A, Hayden JA, Stinson J, McGrath PJ, Chambers CT, Tougas ME, et al. Judging the quality of evidence in reviews of prognostic factor research: adapting the GRADE framework. Systematic Reviews 2013;2:71.

ICH 1997

International Conference on Harmonisation Expert Working Group. International conference on harmonisation of technical requirements for registration of pharmaceuticals for human use. ICH harmonised tripartite guideline. Guideline for good clinical practice //1997 CFR & ICH Guidelines. PA 19063‐2043USA: Barnett International/PAREXEL, 1997.

IEC 2009

International Expert Committee. International Expert Committee report on the role of the A1C assay in the diagnosis of diabetes. Diabetes Care 2009;32(7):1327‐34. [PUBMED: 19502545]

IntHout 2016

IntHout J, Ioannidis JP, Rovers MM, Goeman JJ. Plea for routinely presenting prediction intervals in meta‐analysis. BMJ Open 2016;6:e010247.

Inzucchi 2012

Inzucchi SE. Clinical practice. Diagnosis of diabetes. New England Journal of Medicine 2012;367(6):542‐50. [PUBMED: 22873534]

Iorio 2015

Iorio A, Spencer FA, Falavigna M, Alba C, Lang E, Burnand B, et al. Use of GRADE for assessment of evidence about prognosis: rating confidence in estimates of event rates in broad categories of patients. BMJ 2015;350:h870.

Jensen 2002

Jensen CC, Cnop M, Hull RL, Fujimoto WY, Kahn SE. Beta‐cell function is a major contributor to oral glucose tolerance in high‐risk relatives of four ethnic groups in the U.S. Diabetes 2002;51(7):2170‐8. [PUBMED: 12086947]

Jowett 2009

Jowett JB, Diego VP, Kotea N, Kowlessur S, Chitson P, Dyer TD, et al. Genetic influences on type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome related quantitative traits in Mauritius. Twin Research and Human Genetics 2009;12(1):44‐52.

Lee 2012

Lee M, Saver JL, Hong KS, Song S, Chang KH, Ovbiagele B. Effect of pre‐diabetes on future risk of stroke: meta‐analysis. BMJ 2012;344:e3564.

Liberati 2009

Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic and meta‐analyses of studies that evaluate interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLOS Medicine 2009;6(7):1‐28. [DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100]

Likhari 2010

Likhari T, Gama R. Ethnic differences in glycated haemoglobin between White subjects and those of South Asian origin with normal glucose tolerance. Journal of Clinical Pathology 2010;63:278‐80.

Lind 2009

Lind M, Oden A, Fahlen M, Eliasson B. The true value of HbA1c as a predictor of diabetic complications: simulations of HbA1c variables. PLOS ONE 2009;4:e4412.

Lipska 2017

Lipska KJ, Krumholz HM. Is hemoglobin A1c the right outcome for studies of diabetes?. JAMA 2017;317:1017‐8.

Maruthur 2011

Maruthur NM, Kao WH, Clark JM, Brancati FL, Cheng CY, Pankow JS, et al. Does genetic ancestry explain higher values of glycated hemoglobin in African Americans?. Diabetes 2011;60(9):2434‐8.

Moons 2014

Moons KG, de Groot JA, Bouwmeester W, Vergouwe Y, Mallett S, Altman DG, et al. Critical appraisal and data extraction for systematic reviews of prediction modelling studies: the CHARMS checklist. PLOS Medicine 2014;11(10):e1001744.

Morris 2013

Morris DH, Khunti K, Achana F, Srinivasan B, Gray LJ, Davies MJ, et al. Progression rates from HbA1c 6.0‐6.4% and other prediabetes definitions to type 2 diabetes: a meta‐analysis. Diabetologia 2013;56(7):1489‐93. [PUBMED: 23584433]

Mostafa 2011

Mostafa SA, Khunti K, Srinivasan BT, Webb D, Davies MJ. Detecting type 2 diabetes and impaired glucose regulation using glycated hemoglobin in different populations. Diabetes Management 2011;1:77‐97.

Nair 2015

Nair AK, Baier LJ. Complex genetics of type 2 diabetes and effect size: what have we learned from isolated populations?. Review of Diabetic Studies 2015;12(3‐4):299‐319.

Nathan 2007

Nathan DM, Davidson MB, DeFronzo RA, Heine RJ, Henry RR, Pratley R, et al. Impaired fasting glucose and impaired glucose tolerance: implications for care. Diabetes Care 2007;30:753‐9.

NDDG 1979

National Diabetes Data Group. Classification and diagnosis of diabetes mellitus and other categories of glucose intolerance. Diabetes 1979;28(12):1039‐57. [PUBMED: 510803]

Newcombe 1998

Newcombe RG. Two‐sided confidence intervals for the single proportion: comparison of seven methods. Statistics in Medicine 1998;17:857‐72.

Parrinello 2016

Parrinello CM, Sharrett AR, Maruthur NM, Bergenstal RM, Grams ME, Coresh J, et al. Racial differences in and prognostic value of biomarkers of hyperglycemia. Diabetes Care 2016;39:4589‐95.

Perreault 2012

Perreault L, Pan Q, Mather KJ, Watson KE, Hamman RF, Kahn SE, et al. Effect of regression from prediabetes to normal glucose regulation on long‐term reduction in diabetes risk: results from the diabetes prevention program outcomes study. Lancet 2012;379:2243‐51.

Perreault 2014

Perreault L, Temprosa M, Mather KJ, Horton E, Kitabchi A, Larkin M, et al. Regression from prediabetes to normal glucose regulation is associated with reduction in cardiovascular risk: results from the diabetes prevention program outcomes study. Diabetes Care 2014;37:2622‐31.

RevMan 2014 [Computer program]

Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). Version 5.3. Copenhagen: Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.

Riley 2011

Riley RD, Higgins JP, Deeks JJ. Interpretation of random effects meta‐analyses. BMJ 2011;342:d549.

Riley 2015

Riley RD, Elia EG, Malin G, Hemming K, Price MP. Multivariate meta‐analysis of prognostic factor studies with multiple cut‐points and/or methods of measurement. Statistics in Medicine 2015;34:2481‐96.

Santos‐Oliveira 2011

Santos‐Oliveira R, Purdy C, da Silva MP, dos Anjos Carneiro‐Leao AM, Machado M, Einarson TR. Haemoglobin A1c levels and subsequent cardiovascular disease in persons without diabetes: a meta‐analysis of prospective cohorts. Diabetologia 2011;54(6):1327‐34.

Sarwar 2010

Sarwar N, Aspelund T, Eiriksdottir G, Gobin R, Seshasai SR, Forouhi NG, et al. Markers of dysglycaemia and risk of coronary heart disease in people without diabetes: Reykjavik prospective study and systematic review. PLOS Medicine 2010;7(5):e1000278.

Schottker 2016

Schottker B, Rathmann W, Herder C, Thorand B, Wilsgaard T, Njolstad I, et al. HbA1c levels in non‐diabetic older adults ‐ No J‐shaped associations with primary cardiovascular events, cardiovascular and all‐cause mortality after adjustment for confounders in a meta‐analysis of individual participant data from six cohort studies. BMC Medicine 2016;14:26.

Selvin 2011

Selvin E, Steffes MW, Ballantyne CM, Hoogeveen RC, Coresh J, Brancati FL. Racial differences in glycemic markers: a cross‐sectional analysis of community‐based data. Annals of Internal Medicine 2011;154(5):303‐9. [PUBMED: 21357907]

Serjeantson 1983

Serjeantson SW, Owerbach D, Zimmet P, Nerup J, Thoma K. Genetics of diabetes in Nauru: effects of foreign admixture, HLA antigens and the insulin‐gene‐linked polymorphism. Diabetologia 1983;25(1):13‐7.

Stata 2015 [Computer program]

StataCorp LP. Stata. Version 14. College Station (TX): StataCorp LP, 2015.

Taylor 2017

Taylor R, Leslie WS, Barnes AC, Brosnahan N, Thom G, McCombie L, et al. Clinical and metabolic features of the randomised controlled Diabetes Remission Clinical Trial (DiRECT) cohort. Diabetologia 2017;30:30.

Twito 2015

Twito O, Frankel M, Nabriski D. Impact of glucose level on morbidity and mortality in elderly with diabetes and pre‐diabetes. World Journal of Diabetes 2015;6(2):345‐51.

Viera 2011

Viera AJ. Predisease: when does it make sense?. Epidemiologic Reviews 2011;33:122‐34.

WHO 1998

Alberti KM, Zimmet PZ. Definition, diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus and its complications. Part I: diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus. Provisional report of a WHO consultation. Diabetic Medicine 1998;15(7):539‐53.

WHO 1999

World Health Organization. Definition, Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus and its Complications: Report of a WHO consultation. Part 1. Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus. WHO, 1999.

WHO/IDF 2006

World Health Organization/ International Diabetes Federation. Definition and diagnosis of diabetes mellitus and intermediate hyperglycaemia: report of a WHO/IDF consultation. WHO, 2006. Available from www.who.int/diabetes/publications/Definition%20and%20diagnosis%20of%20diabetes_new.pdf Vol. (assessed 3 March 2018).

Wilczynski 2004

Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB. Developing optimal search strategies for detecting clinically sound prognostic studies in MEDLINE: an analytic survey. BMC Medicine 2004;2(1):23.

Wilczynski 2005

Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB. Optimal search strategies for detecting clinically sound prognostic studies in EMBASE: an analytic survey. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2005;12(4):481‐5.

Xu 2015

Xu T, Liu W, Cai X, Ding J, Tang H, Huang Y, et al. Risk of coronary heart disease in different criterion of impaired fasting glucose: a meta‐analysis. Medicine 2015;94(40):e1740.

Yakubovich 2012

Yakubovich N, Gerstein HC. Is regression to normoglycaemia clinically important?. Lancet 2012;379:2216‐8.

Yudkin 1990

Yudkin JS, Alberti KG, McLarty DG, Swai AB. Impaired glucose tolerance. BMJ 1990;301:397‐402.

Yudkin 2014

Yudkin JS, Montori VM. The epidemic of pre‐diabetes: the medicine and the politics. BMJ 2014;349:g4485.

Yudkin 2016

Yudkin JS. "Prediabetes": Are there problems with this label? Yes, the label creates further problems!. Diabetes Care 2016;39:1468‐71.

Zhang 2010

Zhang X, Gregg EW, Williamson DF, Barker L E, Thomas W, Bullard KM, et al. A1C level and future risk of diabetes: a systematic review. Diabetes Care 2010;33(7):1665‐73.

Zhang 2012a

Zhang Y, Hu G, Yuan Z, Chen L. Glycosylated hemoglobin in relationship to cardiovascular outcomes and death in patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. PLOS ONE 2012;7(8):e42551.

Zhong 2016

Zhong GC, Ye MX, Cheng JH, Zhao Y, Gong JP. HbA1c and risks of all‐cause and cause‐specific death in subjects without known diabetes: a dose‐response meta‐analysis of prospective cohort studies. Scientific Reports 2016;6:24071.

Ziemer 2010

Ziemer DC, Kolm P, Weintraub WS, Vaccarino V, Rhee MK, Twombly JG, et al. Glucose‐independent, black‐white differences in hemoglobin A1c levels: a cross‐sectional analysis of 2 studies. Annals of Internal Medicine 2010;152:770‐7.

Characteristics of studies

Characteristics of included studies [ordered by study ID]

Ir a:

Admiraal 2014

Name of study

Surinamese in the Netherlands: study on health and ethnicity/healthy life in an urban setting (SUNSET/HELIUS)

Inclusion criteria

Participants of 2 studies (SUNSET and HELIUS), Surinamese and ethnic Dutch, southeast Amsterdam, aged 35–60 years with completed interviews and medical examinations at baseline and follow‐up

Exclusion criteria

Missing FPG data, diabetes

Notes

Baseline data for total cohort included in the analyses (N = 456): South‐Asian Surinamese (N = 90), African Surinamese (N = 190), ethnic Dutch (N = 176)

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Study participation: description of source population or population of interest

Low risk

Surinamese in the Netherlands study

Study participation: description of glycaemic status at baseline

Low risk

456 participants available for analysis; table 1 specifies people with IFG5.7

Study participation: adequate description of sampling frame & recruitment

Low risk

Random sample of 2975 Surinamese and ethnic Dutch individuals, aged 35–60, drawn from the population register of 2 neighbourhoods in southeast Amsterdam

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 specified

Study attrition: description of attempts to collect information on participants who dropped out

Low risk

Those who were lost to follow‐up were younger, had a higher BMI and greater waist circumference, a higher FPG and more often had baseline IFG than those with follow‐up data available after 10 years

Study attrition: reasons for loss to follow‐up provided

Low risk

777/1444 lost to follow‐up (moved outside of Amsterdam, declined to participate, died, non‐response); figure S1

Study attrition: adequate description of participants lost to follow‐up

Low risk

Reported in Table S2

Study attrition: no important differences between participants who completed the study and those who did not

Unclear risk

See above

Glycaemic status measurement: provision of clear definition or description of glycaemic status

Low risk

IFG

Glycaemic status measurement: valid and reliable method of glycaemic status measurement

Low risk

FPG measurement by G6PD test

Glycaemic status measurement: continuous variables reported or appropriate cut points used

Low risk

IFG: FPG 5.7–6.9

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; self‐reported T2DM

Outcome measurement: method of outcome measurement used valid & reliable

Low risk

Reliable measurement

Outcome measurement: same method & setting of outcome measurement for all study participants

Low risk

Yes

Study confounding: important confounders measured

Unclear risk

Limited number of confounders measured

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

Adjustment for sex, age, BMI and change in BMI after 10 years

Study confounding: important potential confounders accounted for in the analysis

Low risk

Unadjusted and adjusted analyses

Statistical analysis & reporting: sufficient presentation of data to assess adequacy of the analytic strategy

Low risk

Cumulative incidence, odds ratio

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Multivariate logistic regression
Aekplakorn 2006

Name of study

None

Inclusion criteria

Eymployees of the Electric Generation Authority Bangkok, Thailand aged ≥ 35 years ('exploratory cohort'); middle‐income social class

Exclusion criteria

Diabetes at baseline

Notes

Baseline data for cohort becoming diabetic (N = 361)

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Study participation: description of source population or population of interest

Low risk

Cohort study of employees of the Electric Generation Authority of Bangkok, Thailand

Study participation: description of glycaemic status at baseline

Low risk

Yes

Study participation: adequate description of sampling frame & recruitment

Low risk

3499 employees aged ≥ 35 years; mostly urban dwellers of middle‐income social class

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 specified

Study attrition: description of attempts to collect information on participants who dropped out

Low risk

Of 3254 participants without diabetes at baseline, 2667 took part in the 1997 survey

Study attrition: reasons for loss to follow‐up provided

Low risk

Yes

Study attrition: adequate description of participants lost to follow‐up

Low risk

Individuals lost to follow‐up were slightly older

Study attrition: no important differences between participants who completed the study and those who did not

Unclear risk

Unclear, limited data only

Glycaemic status measurement: provision of clear definition or description of glycaemic status

Low risk

2‐h OGTT after 75‐g glucose load

Glycaemic status measurement: valid and reliable method of glycaemic status measurement

Low risk

Glucose oxidase method

Glycaemic status measurement: continuous variables reported or appropriate cut points used

Low risk

IFG: FPG ≥ 5.6 to < 7.0; IGT: 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

FPG ≥ 7.0 or 2‐h glucose ≥ 11.1; development of T2DM during the follow‐up period until 1997 according to FPG or diagnosis and/or receipt of diabetes medication during follow‐up

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

Limited number of confounders

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

Age, sex, BMI, waist circumference, smoking status, drinking status, family history, hypertension

Study confounding: important potential confounders accounted for in the analysis

Low risk

Yes; IFG status (model 2) and IGT status (model 3)

Statistical analysis & reporting: sufficient presentation of data to assess adequacy of the analytic strategy

Low risk

Odds ratio

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Multivariable logistic regression
Ammari 1998

Name of study

None

Inclusion criteria

Community‐based survey of cardiovascular risk factors in 4 Jordanian towns, individuals aged ≥ 25 years; follow‐up on one of the town (Sikhra) and matched control group with non‐IGT (normal) individuals from initial survey

Exclusion criteria

Diabetes

Notes

Few baseline data reported for total study population (N = 212)

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Study participation: description of source population or population of interest

Low risk

4 community‐based survey of cardiovascular risk factors in 4 Jordanian towns

Study participation: description of glycaemic status at baseline

Low risk

Community‐based survey of cardiovascular risk factors in 4 Jordanian towns

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

High risk

Scarce data

Study attrition: reasons for loss to follow‐up provided

Low risk

Yes

Study attrition: adequate description of participants lost to follow‐up

Unclear risk

Not described (some comparison of participants with non‐participants)

Study attrition: no important differences between participants who completed the study and those who did not

Unclear risk

Not described

Glycaemic status measurement: provision of clear definition or description of glycaemic status

Low risk

IGT

Glycaemic status measurement: valid and reliable method of glycaemic status measurement

Low risk

FPG and 2‐h 75 g OGTT

Glycaemic status measurement: continuous variables reported or appropriate cut points used

Low risk

IGT: 2‐h PG 7.8 to < 11.1 (WHO 1985)

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

2‐h PG ≥ 11.1 (WHO 1985)

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 (probably FPG and 2‐h OGTT was also measured at follow‐up)

Study confounding: important confounders measured

Unclear risk

Some baseline parameters were investigated (hypercholesterolaemia, hypertriglyceridaemia, obesity, hypertension, family history of diabetes)

Study confounding: clear definitions of important confounders provided

Unclear risk

Scarce data

Study confounding: measurement of confounders valid & reliable

Unclear risk

Scarce data

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

Not reported

Study confounding: important potential confounders accounted for in study design

Unclear risk

Not reported

Study confounding: important potential confounders accounted for in the analysis

Unclear risk

Not reported

Statistical analysis & reporting: sufficient presentation of data to assess adequacy of the analytic strategy

Low risk

Cumulative incidence

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Unclear risk

Not reported
Anjana 2015

Name of study

Chennai Urban Rural Epidemiology Study (CURES)

Inclusion criteria

Representative sample from Chennai, ≥ 20 years of age

Exclusion criteria

Diabetes at baseline, unknown glycaemic status

Notes

Baseline data for cohort becoming diabetic at follow‐up (N = 176)

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Study participation: description of source population or population of interest

Low risk

Chennai Urban Rural Epidemiology Study

Study participation: description of glycaemic status at baseline

Low risk

299 with 'prediabetes'

Study participation: adequate description of sampling frame & recruitment

Low risk

Representative sample from Chennai, ≥ 20 years

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 specified

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

High 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

i‐IFG, i‐IGT, IFG/IGT

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

i‐IGT: 2‐h PG 7.8–11.0 and FPG > 5.6; i‐IFG: FPG 5.6–6.9 and 2‐h PG < 7.8; prediabetes: FPG 5.6–6.9 or 2‐h PG 7.8–11.0 (i‐IGT or i‐IFG or IFG/IGT)

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; diagnosed; 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

Unclear risk

For IFG/IGT, several confounders measured as predictors for incident diabetes

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

Cox proportional hazards model for various single factors

Study confounding: important potential confounders accounted for in the analysis

Unclear risk

Univariate analyses

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

Unclear risk

Cox proportional hazards model, univariate analyses for single variables
Bae 2011

Name of study

None

Inclusion criteria

Individuals who participated in comprehensive health check‐ups annually for 5 years

Exclusion criteria

Anaemia with a haemoglobin level < 7.4 mmol/L; self‐reported diabetes and undiagnosed diabetes (FPG concentration 7.0 mmol/l or HbA1c 6.5%; absence of HbA1c data at any visit

Notes

Baseline data for total cohort

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Study participation: description of source population or population of interest

Low risk

Participants partially undergoing annual or biannual health check‐ups (Kangbuk Samsung Hospital Total,Healthcare Center)

Study participation: description of glycaemic status at baseline

Low risk

Yes

Study participation: adequate description of sampling frame & recruitment

Unclear risk

Scarce data

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

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

Not reported

Glycaemic status measurement: provision of clear definition or description of glycaemic status

Low risk

HbA1c5.7 and HbA1c6.0

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

Unclear risk

Normal reference for HbA1c: < 5

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; history of diabetes; 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

Unclear risk

2 covariates measured: age and sex

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

2 covariates included: age and sex

Study confounding: important potential confounders accounted for in the analysis

Unclear risk

2 covariates analysed: age and sex

Statistical analysis & reporting: sufficient presentation of data to assess adequacy of the analytic strategy

Low risk

Cumulative incidence, incidence rate, hazard ratio

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Unclear risk

Kaplan‐Meier method, Cox proportional hazard analysis (2 covariates), ROC analysis
Baena‐Diez 2011

Name of study

None

Inclusion criteria

Participants aged > 18 years visiting a healthcare centre with impaired fasting glucose measured twice

Exclusion criteria

Corticosteroid therapy, terminal illness, life expectancy of 1 year or less, diabetes

Notes

Baseline data for cohort with intermediate hyperglycaemia (N = 115)

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Study participation: description of source population or population of interest

Low risk

Healthcare centre in Barcelona, Spain, "Cohorta Zona Franca"

Study participation: description of glycaemic status at baseline

Low risk

Yes

Study participation: adequate description of sampling frame & recruitment

Unclear risk

Scarce data

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 specified

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

Quote: "no significant differences"

Glycaemic status measurement: provision of clear definition or description of glycaemic status

Low risk

IFG

Glycaemic status measurement: valid and reliable method of glycaemic status measurement

Low risk

FPG measured twice

Glycaemic status measurement: continuous variables reported or appropriate cut points used

Low risk

IFG: 6.1–6.9

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 (measured twice)

Outcome measurement: method of outcome measurement used valid & reliable

Low risk

FPG

Outcome measurement: same method & setting of outcome measurement for all study participants

Low risk

Yes

Study confounding: important confounders measured

Unclear risk

Some variables (univariate analyses) associated with progression to diabetes

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 confounders measured

Study confounding: important potential confounders accounted for in the analysis

Unclear risk

Univariate analyses for single variables

Statistical analysis & reporting: sufficient presentation of data to assess adequacy of the analytic strategy

Low risk

Cumulative incidence

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Unclear risk

Cox regression for other risk factors (e.g. obesity) associated with progression to diabetes

Bai 1999

Name of study

None

Inclusion criteria

Staff of the Indian Institute of Technology of Chennai, along with their family members, aged 20 years and over

Exclusion criteria

Treatment for diabetes

Notes

Baseline data for the IGT cohort (N = 252)

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Study participation: description of source population or population of interest

Low risk

Staff of the Indian Institute of Technology of Chennai, along with their family members, aged 20 years and over

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

High risk

Not reported

Study attrition: reasons for loss to follow‐up provided

High risk

Not reported

Study attrition: adequate description of participants lost to follow‐up

High 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

IGT

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: 7.8 to < 11.1 (WHO 1985)

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

2‐h PG ≥ 11.1 (WHO 1985)

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

Not reported, cumulative incidence

Study confounding: clear definitions of important confounders provided

Unclear risk

Not reported

Study confounding: measurement of confounders valid & reliable

Unclear risk

Not reported

Study confounding: same method & setting for measurements of confounders for all study participants

Unclear risk

Not reported

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

Not reported

Study confounding: important potential confounders accounted for in the analysis

Unclear risk

Not reported

Statistical analysis & reporting: sufficient presentation of data to assess adequacy of the analytic strategy

Low risk

Cumulative incidence

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Unclear risk

Not reported
Bergman 2016

Name of study

Israel study of glucose intolerance, obesity and hypertension (Israel GOH study)

Inclusion criteria

Survival until follow‐up with fasting blood glucose < 126 mg/dL (7.0 mmol/L) and 1‐ and 2‐h postload glucose values available at baseline

Exclusion criteria

Individuals with diabetes

Notes

Baseline data for IGT cohort (N = 24)

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Study participation: description of source population or population of interest

Low risk

Israeli general population registry sample

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

Comment: "no differences" between non‐participants and participants

Glycaemic status measurement: provision of clear definition or description of glycaemic status

Low risk

Comment: IGT

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

Comment: FPG 5.6–7.8; 2‐h BG 7.8–11.0

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

Unclear risk

Comment: FPG ≥ 7.8, 2‐h BG ≥ 11.1; reported diabetes

Outcome measurement: method of outcome measurement used valid & reliable

Unclear risk

Non‐standard FPG thresholds

Outcome measurement: same method & setting of outcome measurement for all study participants

Low risk

Yes

Study confounding: important confounders measured

Unclear risk

Comment: some confounders were measured

Study confounding: clear definitions of important confounders provided

Unclear risk

Comment: scarce data

Study confounding: measurement of confounders valid & reliable

Unclear risk

Comment: scarce data

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

Low risk

Cumulative incidence, odds ratio

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Multiple multinomial logistic regression
Bonora 2011

Name of study

Bruneck Study

Inclusion criteria

White men and women, aged 40–79 years

Exclusion criteria

Not reported

Notes

No baseline data (except white participants aged > 40 years, N = 919)

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Study participation: description of source population or population of interest

Low risk

Bruneck study, a long‐term prospective population‐based study of atherosclerosis and its risk factors

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 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

High risk

Scarce data

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

Unclear risk

HbA1c categories, IFG (additional analyses)

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

HbA1: 6.0–6.49; IFG: not defined, probably 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; diabetes treatment

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

Low risk

Cumulative incidence, incidence rate, hazard ratio

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Cox proportional hazards models; additional models were run with updates variables (HbA1c and other variables were assessed every 5 years during follow‐up)

Cederberg 2010

Name of study

None

Inclusion criteria

All inhabitants of the city of Oulo, Finland, born in 1935

Exclusion criteria

Diabetes at baseline

Notes

Baseline data for the total cohort (N = 553), men (N = 223), women (N = 330)

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Study participation: description of source population or population of interest

Low risk

Part of a longer follow‐up study assessing type 2 diabetes and IGT

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

IFG, IGT, IFG/IGT

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: 6.1–6.9; 2‐h PG < 7.8; IGT: FPG > 7.0; 2‐h PG 7.8 to < 11.1; elevated 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

Confirmed by 2 diabetic 75 g OGTTs (2‐h PG ≥ 11.1) and/or fasting values

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 confounders measured

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

Low risk

Cumulative incidence, risk ratio

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Log‐binomial regression
Chamnan 2011

Name of study

European Prospective Investigation of Cancer (EPIC)‐Norfolk cohort

Inclusion criteria

Participants aged 40–74 years from the Norfolk region, UK; individuals with HbA1c measurements at baseline and the second health assessment

Exclusion criteria

Diabetes at baseline, missing data

Notes

Baseline data for HbA1c 6.0–6.4 cohort (N = 370)

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Study participation: description of source population or population of interest

Low risk

Population‐based study monitoring individuals recruited from general practice in the Norfolk region, UK

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

Scarce data

Glycaemic status measurement: provision of clear definition or description of glycaemic status

Low risk

HbA1c (50% of all participants had information on this measure at baseline); analyses were limited to these individuals

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

HbA1c 6.0–6.4

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

HbA1c ≥ 6.5; reported physician‐diagnosed diabetes or diabetes medications; antihyperglycaemic medication; diagnosis through medical records, registers or death certificates; results for clinically and/or biochemically diagnosed diabetes were used

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

Low risk

Cumulative incidence, odds ratio

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Logistic regression (for every 0.5% increase in HbA1c as well as for different categories of HbA1c)

Charles 1997

Name of study

Paris Prospective Study

Inclusion criteria

Longitudinal epidemiologic study of cardiovascular risk factors in male employees of the Paris police, born in France between 1917–28

Exclusion criteria

No diabetes or cardiovascular disease

Notes

Baseline data for individuals with IGT converting to T2DM (N = 32)

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Study participation: description of source population or population of interest

Low risk

Longitudinal epidemiologic study of cardiovascular risk factors in male employees of the Paris

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

High risk

Not reported

Study attrition: reasons for loss to follow‐up provided

High risk

Not reported

Study attrition: adequate description of participants lost to follow‐up

High 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

IGT

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: 2‐h PG ≥ 7.8 to < 11.1 (WHO 1985)

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

2‐h PG ≥ 11.1 (WHO 1985); physician diagnosed diabetes

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

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 (see below)

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

Low risk

Cumulative incidence

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Multivariate logistic regression (odds ratio for an increase of 1 SD in the population of participants with NGT or IGT)

Chen 2003

Name of study

None

Inclusion criteria

Residents of Penghu, Taiwan aged 40–79 years were selected for a baseline diabetes prevalence study

Exclusion criteria

Diabetes at baseline

Notes

Baseline data for cohort converting to T2DM (N = 26)

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Study participation: description of source population or population of interest

Low risk

Random sample of residents of Penghu, Taipei were selected for a baseline diabetes prevalence survey

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 reported

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

Quote: "the 600 persons who were re‐examined did not significantly differ from the others"

Glycaemic status measurement: provision of clear definition or description of glycaemic status

Low risk

IFG

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 6.1–7.0

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

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 confounders measured

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

Unclear risk

Age‐sex adjusted odds ratio

Statistical analysis & reporting: sufficient presentation of data to assess adequacy of the analytic strategy

Low risk

Cumulative incidence, odds ratio

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Multiple logistic regression (selected risk factors)
Chen 2017

Name of study

None

Inclusion criteria

Participants with complete 3 year follow‐up and non‐pharmacological interventions

Exclusion criteria

Participants aged 0–60 years, incomplete baseline data, diabetes at baseline

Notes

Baseline data for i‐IFG/i‐IGTand IFG/IGT across age groups < 40 years + > 60 years (data indicate range across groups) (i‐IFG < 40 years: N = 51 and > 60 years: N = 278; i‐IGT < 40 years: N = 41 and > 60 years: N = 151; IFG/IGT: < 40 years: N = 34 and > 60 years: N = 175)

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Study participation: description of source population or population of interest

Low risk

Permanent participants of Fujian province (China), part of the baseline survey from the REACTION study investigating the association between diabetes and cancer

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

IFG, IGT, IFG/IGT

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 + 2‐h PG ≤ 7.8; IGT: FPG < 5.6 + 2‐h PG 7.8 to ≤ 11.0; IFG/IGT: FPG 5.6–6.9 + 2‐h PG 7.8 to ≤ 11.0

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; previously diagnosed diabetes

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

Confounder adjustment for HOMA‐IR and HOMA‐B

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 (HOMA‐IR, HOMA‐B)

Statistical analysis & reporting: sufficient presentation of data to assess adequacy of the analytic strategy

Low risk

Cumulative incidence

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Stepwise multiple regression analysis (for HOMA‐IR or HOMA‐B)
Coronado‐Malagon 2009

Name of study

None

Inclusion criteria

Healthy Mexicans

Exclusion criteria

Previous diabetes diagnosis, various diseases and medications affecting glucose metabolism

Notes

Baseline characteristics for the prediabetic cohort (N = 217)

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Study participation: description of source population or population of interest

Low risk

Personnel working for Petróleos Mexicanos with annual health‐checkups living in the metropolitan area of Mexico City

Study participation: description of glycaemic status at baseline

Unclear risk

Quote: "prediabetes"

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

Not reported

Glycaemic status measurement: provision of clear definition or description of glycaemic status

Unclear risk

IFG and IGT (ADA 2007), vague definition

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

Unclear risk

IFG and IGT: 5.6–6.9 and 7.8 to < 11.1 (ADA 2007), vague definition

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

Unclear risk

FPG ≥ 7.0 or 2‐h PG ≥ 11.1 (ADA 2007), vague definition

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

Scarce data

Study confounding: clear definitions of important confounders provided

Unclear risk

Scarce data

Study confounding: measurement of confounders valid & reliable

Unclear risk

Scarce data

Study confounding: same method & setting for measurements of confounders for all study participants

Unclear risk

Scarce data

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

Scarce data

Study confounding: important potential confounders accounted for in the analysis

Unclear risk

Not reported

Statistical analysis & reporting: sufficient presentation of data to assess adequacy of the analytic strategy

Low risk

Cumulative incidence, relative risk

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Logistic regression
Cugati 2007

Name of study

Blue Mountains Eye Study (BMES)

Inclusion criteria

Survey of vision and common eye diseases in 2 postcode areas west of Sydney; all permanent non‐institutionalised residents with birth date prior to January 1943 (aged 49+ at baseline) were invited to attend a detailed eye examination at a local clinic

Exclusion criteria

Nursing home residents, diabetes at baseline, missing data

Notes

Baseline data for BMES I study, people without diabetes (N = 3437/3654)

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Study participation: description of source population or population of interest

Low risk

Older community within the geographically defined area west of Sydney, Australia; population‐based survey of vision and common eye diseases

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, for most variables

Glycaemic status measurement: provision of clear definition or description of glycaemic status

Low risk

IFG

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 (originally FPG ≥ 6.1 to < 7.0)

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; self‐reported diabetes history; 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

Unclear risk

Few variables (adjustment for age and sex)

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

Few variables

Study confounding: important potential confounders accounted for in the analysis

Unclear risk

Few variables

Statistical analysis & reporting: sufficient presentation of data to assess adequacy of the analytic strategy

Low risk

Cumulative incidence, odds ratio

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Multivariate‐adjusted discrete logistic models, few variables
De Abreu 2015

Name of study

Geelong Osteoporosis Study (GOS)

Inclusion criteria

Female arm of the GOS

Exclusion criteria

No FPG level or self‐report of antihyperglycaemic medication or diabetes status

Notes

Baseline data for IFG cohort at baseline (N = 187)

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Study participation: description of source population or population of interest

Low risk

Utilised data from the female arm of the Geelong Osteoporosis Study, Australia

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

IFG

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: 5.5–6.9

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; self‐reported; 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, also age‐standardised incidence rate and additional covariates reported (metabolic syndrome, fasting glucose at baseline) (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

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

Low risk

Cumulative incidence, incidence rate, odds ratio

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Logistic regression
Den Biggelaar 2016

Name of study

Cohort on Diabetes and Atherosclerosis Maastricht (CODAM)

Inclusion criteria

Individuals with an elevated risk of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease

Exclusion criteria

Previously diagnosed type 2 diabetes at baseline, who did not undergo an OGTT and incomplete OGTT data

Notes

Baseline data for prediabetic group (N = 122)

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Study participation: description of source population or population of interest

Low risk

Participants of the Cohort on Diabetes and Atherosclerosis Masstricht (CODAM) study on natural progression of glucose tolerance

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

Analyses restricted individuals without T2DM who participated in the follow‐up measurements

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

IFG and IGT

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 6.1–6.9; 2‐h PG 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

FPG ≥ 7.0; 2‐h PG ≥ 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

Not reported, cumulative incidence

Study confounding: clear definitions of important confounders provided

Unclear risk

Not reported

Study confounding: measurement of confounders valid & reliable

Unclear risk

Not reported

Study confounding: same method & setting for measurements of confounders for all study participants

Unclear risk

Not reported

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

Not reported

Study confounding: important potential confounders accounted for in the analysis

Unclear risk

Not reported

Statistical analysis & reporting: sufficient presentation of data to assess adequacy of the analytic strategy

Low risk

Cumulative incidence

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Discriminatory ability of beta‐cell functions indices to predict 'prediabetes' and T2DM by means of ROC curves

Derakhshan 2016

Name of study

Tehran Lipid and Glucose Study (TLGS)

Inclusion criteria

3 separate analyses to investigate incidence of type 2 diabetes, hypertension and chronic kidney disease

Exclusion criteria

Individuals aged < 20 years, type 2 diabetes at baseline, missing data, no follow‐ups

Notes

Baseline data for 'prediabetes' group with normal blood pressure (IFG and/or IGT, N = 523)

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Study participation: description of source population or population of interest

Low risk

Population‐based study on a representative sample of the population of Tehran to determine the prevalence and incidence of non‐communicable diseases and their risk factors

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

Not reported

Glycaemic status measurement: provision of clear definition or description of glycaemic status

Unclear risk

Quote: "prediabetes" (IFG and IGT)

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

5.55 ≤ FPG < 7.0; 7.77 ≤ 2‐h PG ≤ 11.1; no antihyperglycaemic medication

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; 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

Low risk

Multiple imputation

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

Low risk

Incidence rate, hazard ratio

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Cox proportional hazard models
Dowse 1991

Name of study

Nauru Study

Inclusion criteria

All Nauruans aged 20 years and over; this survey included 266 individuals who were not diabetic in the combined 1975/76 survey; individuals who had previously attended either or both the 1975/76 and 1982 surveys; individuals with at least one parent identified as being of Nauruan heritage

Exclusion criteria

Diabetes

Notes

No baseline data

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Study participation: description of source population or population of interest

Low risk

Nauruan population, persons of Micronesian ancestry

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

Description of inclusion and exclusion criteria

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

Some reasons provided

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

Scarce data

Glycaemic status measurement: provision of clear definition or description of glycaemic status

Low risk

IGT

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 < 7.8 and 2‐h PG ≥ 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

2‐h PG ≥ 11.1 (WHO 1985); FPG ≥ 7.8

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 confounders were measured

Study confounding: clear definitions of important confounders provided

Unclear risk

Yes

Study confounding: measurement of confounders valid & reliable

Unclear risk

Yes

Study confounding: same method & setting for measurements of confounders for all study participants

Unclear 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

Yes

Study confounding: important potential confounders accounted for in the analysis

Unclear risk

Yes

Statistical analysis & reporting: sufficient presentation of data to assess adequacy of the analytic strategy

Low risk

Cumulative incidence, incidence rate, odds ratio

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Multiple logistic regression models
Ferrannini 2009

Name of study

Mexico City Diabetes Study

Inclusion criteria

Population‐based study of diabetes and cardiovascular risk factors in low‐income neighbourhoods in Mexico City, participants aged 35–64 years

Exclusion criteria

Type 2 diabetes, type 1 diabetes, pregnant women

Notes

Baseline characteristics provided for a range across different definitions of 'prediabetes'

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Study participation: description of source population or population of interest

Low risk

Data were collected as part of the Mexico City Diabetes Study

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

Description of inclusion and exclusion criteria

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

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

Unclear, limited data

Glycaemic status measurement: provision of clear definition or description of glycaemic status

Low risk

(i)IFG, (i)IGT

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 6.1–6.9; IGT: FPG < 7.0 and 2‐h PG 7.8–11.1; i‐IFG6.1/i‐IFG5.6: 2‐h PG < 7.8 and FPG 6.1–6.9/5.6–6.1; i‐IGT/i‐IGT6.1/i‐IGT5.6

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

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

Not for transition data (intermediate hyperglycaemia to T2DM)

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

Scarce data

Study confounding: important potential confounders accounted for in the analysis

Unclear risk

Scarce data

Statistical analysis & reporting: sufficient presentation of data to assess adequacy of the analytic strategy

Low risk

Cumulative incidence, relative risk (multiple model odds ratios were calculated for 1 SD of the population value of that variable, in order to compare the relative importance of the variables (sex, familial diabetes, age, BMI, FPG, 2‐h PG)

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Unclear risk

Logistic regression (for calculation of odds ratios, see above)
Filippatos 2016

Name of study

ATTICA (province of Attica, Greece)

Inclusion criteria

1 participant per household, inhabitants from the Attica province

Exclusion criteria

People living in institutions; people with CVD and of those with chronic viral infections

Notes

Baseline data for IFG5.6 cohort

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Study participation: description of source population or population of interest

Low risk

ATTICA study

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 (participants with no diabetes and no CVD at baseline)

Study attrition: description of attempts to collect information on participants who dropped out

Low risk

Yes (85% participation rate)

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

Not reported

Glycaemic status measurement: provision of clear definition or description of glycaemic status

Low risk

IFG5.6

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

FBG 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

FBG > 6.9; use of antidiabetic 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

Unclear risk

Some confounders measured

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 confounders included

Study confounding: important potential confounders accounted for in the analysis

Unclear risk

Some confounders analysed

Statistical analysis & reporting: sufficient presentation of data to assess adequacy of the analytic strategy

Low risk

Cumulative incidence, odds ratio

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Multiple logistic regression models
Forouhi 2007

Name of study

Ely Study (Cambridgeshire, UK)

Inclusion criteria

All adults free of known diabetes registered with a single practice serving Ely, adults aged 40–69 years

Exclusion criteria

Diabetes

Notes

Baseline data for the IFG6.1 cohort (N = 257)

Cumulative incidence increased across increasing age groups and was higher in men than in women

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Study participation: description of source population or population of interest

Low risk

The Ely Study (Cambridgeshire, UK) was a prospective study of the aetiology of T2DM

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

IFG

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

IFG6.1: FPG 6.1–6.9 (FPG < 7.0 and 2‐h PG < 11.1) and IFG5.6: FPG 5.6–6.0

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; physician diagnosis or treatment for diabetes

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 confounders measured

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

Low risk

Cumulative incidence, incidence rate, hazard ratio

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Cox regression (cumulative hazard curves by glucose status)
Garcia 2016

Name of study

Sacramento Area Latino Study on Aging (SALSA)

Inclusion criteria

Older Mexican Americans residing in the Sacramento metropolitan statistical area

Exclusion criteria

Missing baseline diabetes status, certain neighbourhoods

Notes

Baseline data for the IFG cohort (N = 310)

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Study participation: description of source population or population of interest

Low risk

Participants were from the Sacramento Area Latino Study on Aging (SALSA), a longitudinal cohort study of physical and cognitive impairment and cardiovascular diseases in community‐dwelling older Mexican Americans residing in the Sacramento Metropolltan Statistical Area

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 reported

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

Not reported but only 12/1789 participants were excluded

Glycaemic status measurement: provision of clear definition or description of glycaemic status

Low risk

IFG

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

FBG 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; self‐reported; antihyperglycaemic medication; diabetes comedication at death

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 confounders measured

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

Multistate Markov models

Study confounding: important potential confounders accounted for in the analysis

Low risk

Multistate Markov models

Statistical analysis & reporting: sufficient presentation of data to assess adequacy of the analytic strategy

Low risk

Cumulative incidence (hazard ratio was calculated for the association between neighbourhood scocioeconomic position (NSEP) scores and transitions between various (pre)diabetic stages)

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Multistate Markov models
Gautier 2010

Name of study

Data from an Epidemiological Study on the Insulin Resistance Syndrome (DESIR) cohort

Inclusion criteria

Men and women aged 30–64 years recruited from volunteers who were offered periodic health examinations free of charge by the French Social Security at 10 health centres in western France

Exclusion criteria

Diabetes at baseline, individuals with unknown diabetes status at the 9‐year examination

Notes

No baseline data for cohort with intermediate hyperglycaemia

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Study participation: description of source population or population of interest

Low risk

Participants of the Data from an Epidemiological Study on the Insulin Resistance Syndrome (DESIR) cohort who had IFG at baseline

Study participation: description of glycaemic status at baseline

Low risk

Yes

Study participation: adequate description of sampling frame & recruitment

Unclear risk

Key characteristics unclear

Study participation: adequate description of period & recruitment place

Unclear risk

Time frame unclear

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

High risk

Not reported

Study attrition: reasons for loss to follow‐up provided

Unclear risk

Scarce data

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

Not reported

Glycaemic status measurement: provision of clear definition or description of glycaemic status

Low risk

IFG

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; treatment for diabetes (at 1 of the 3‐yearly examinations)

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

Some confounders measured

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

Unclear 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 (see below)

Study confounding: important potential confounders accounted for in the analysis

Low risk

Yes (see below)

Statistical analysis & reporting: sufficient presentation of data to assess adequacy of the analytic strategy

Low risk

Cumulative incidence (odds ratios for 9‐year incident diabetes per 1 SD change in waist circumference and weight in IFG)

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Logistic models (for increases in waist circumference and weight)
Gomez‐Arbelaez 2015

Name of study

None

Inclusion criteria

Adults ≥ 35 years attending a general practitioner for any reason

Exclusion criteria

Known diabetes, acute illness, pregnancy, use of antihyperglycaemic medication

Notes

Baseline data for the total cohort (N = 772)

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Study participation: description of source population or population of interest

Low risk

Longitudinal observational study conducted in a healthcare centre in Floridablanca, Colombia

Study participation: description of glycaemic status at baseline

Low risk

Yes

Study participation: adequate description of sampling frame & recruitment

Low risk

The sub‐sample of people with intermediate hyperglycaemia was followed for diabetes incidence

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

High risk

Not reported

Study attrition: reasons for loss to follow‐up provided

High risk

Not reported

Study attrition: adequate description of participants lost to follow‐up

High 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

Intermediate hyperglycaemia as measured by FPG, OGTT, HbA1c; FINDRISC score

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: ≥ 5.6 to < 7.0; IGT: ≥ 7.8 to < 11.1; HbA1c ≥ 5.7 to ≤ 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; OGTT ≥ 11.1; HbA1c ≥ 6.5

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

Age and sex‐adjusted odds ratios for FINDRISC score

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

For FINDRISC score

Study confounding: important potential confounders accounted for in the analysis

Unclear risk

Age and sex‐adjusted odds ratios

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

Multivariate logistic regression for the association between the FINDRISC score and incident T2DM

Guerrero‐Romero 2006

Name of study

None

Inclusion criteria

Men and non‐pregnant women, aged 20–64 years, were recruited from the city of Durango, northern Mexico; with NGT or IGT

Exclusion criteria

Participants who failed to attend 2 or more visits

Notes

Baseline data for IGT cohort at baseline progressing to T2DM (N = 20); all individuals were counselled on the importance of diet and physical exercise (standard care for the whole cohort)

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Study participation: description of source population or population of interest

Low risk

Cohort study in healthy Mexicans to determine predictors for the development of metabolic disorders

Study participation: description of glycaemic status at baseline

Low risk

Yes

Study participation: adequate description of sampling frame & recruitment

Unclear risk

Time frame unclear

Study participation: adequate description of period & recruitment place

Unclear risk

Period of recruitment unclear

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

IGT

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: 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

2‐h PG: ≥ 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 (for association between beta‐cell function and IGT/T2DM) (see Appendix 16 and Appendix 17)

Study confounding: clear definitions of important confounders provided

Unclear risk

Not reported

Study confounding: measurement of confounders valid & reliable

Unclear risk

Not reported

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

For beta‐cell function and IGT/T2DM

Study confounding: important potential confounders accounted for in the analysis

Unclear risk

Some confounders measured

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

Multivariate logistic regression on relative risk of IGT or T2DM associated with beta‐cell function

Han 2017

Name of study

Ansung‐Ansan cohort study, part of the Korean Genome and Epidemiology Study (KoGES), to investigate the trends in diabetes and associated risk factors

Inclusion criteria

Urban (Ansan) and rural (Ansung) communities (within 60 km of Seoul)

Exclusion criteria

Unknown glucose status, individuals with known diabetes, participants who were newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes at baseline examination; persons with a history of malignant diseases,
liver failure, end‐stage renal disease, rheumatological diseases and acute or chronic infectious diseases, individuals who had taken steroids in the previous 3 months; individuals who did not undergo any follow‐up examination after the baseline examination

Notes

Baseline data for i‐IFG, i‐IGT and IFG/IGT

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Study participation: description of source population or population of interest

Low risk

Ansung‐Ansan Cohort Study, part of the Korean Genome and Epidemiology Study (KoGES)

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 (follow‐up rate at 12 years 60.6%)

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

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

IFG: FPG 5.6–6.9 and no diagnosis of diabetes; IGT: 2‐h PG 7.8 to < 11.1; i‐IFG5.6: IFG without IGT; i‐IGT: IGT without IFG; IGT/IGT: IFG+IGT; 'prediabetes': IFG or IGT

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; HbA1c ≥ 6.5; current antihyperglycaemic treatment

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

Low risk

Cumulative incidence, incidence rate, hazard ratio

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Multivariate Cox proportional hazard model
Hanley 2005

Name of study

Insulin Resistance Atherosclerosis Study (IRAS)

Inclusion criteria

4 clinical centres (Oakland, Los Angeles ‐ non‐Hispanic whites and blacks recruited from Kaiser Permanente) and San Antonio, San Luis Valley (non‐Hispanic whites and Hispanics): from 2 population‐based studies (San Antonio Heart Study and the San Luis Valley Diabetes study)

Exclusion criteria

Participants with inflammatory diseases; diabetes; no information on metabolic variables of interest and follow‐up glucose tolerance status

Notes

Baseline data for diabetic cohort at follow‐up (N = 131); participants were recruited from 2 population‐based studies: the San Antonio Heart Study and the San Luis Valley diabetes study

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Study participation: description of source population or population of interest

Low risk

Observational study of the relationship between insulin resistance, cardiovascular disease and its known risk factors in different ethnic groups and varying states of glucose tolerance; the study was conducted at 4 clinical centres; report on individuals who were nondiabetic at baseline and for whom information was available on metabolic variables of interest and follow‐up glucose tolerance status

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

Response rate 81%

Study attrition: reasons for loss to follow‐up provided

Unclear risk

Scarce data

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

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

Unclear risk

Yes

Glycaemic status measurement: continuous variables reported or appropriate cut points used

Low risk

IFG, IGT (WHO 1999)

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

High risk

Not specified

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 measured (see Appendix 16 and Appendix 17)

Study confounding: important potential confounders accounted for in the analysis

Unclear risk

Some covariates (age, sex, clinical centre, ethnicity) (see Appendix 16 and Appendix 17)

Statistical analysis & reporting: sufficient presentation of data to assess adequacy of the analytic strategy

Low risk

Cumulative incidence, odds ratio

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Logistic regression
Heianza 2012

Name of study

Toranomon Hospital Health Management Center Study (TOPICS)

Inclusion criteria

Participants from the TOPICS: apparently healthy Japanese government employees who underwent annual multiphasic health screening examinations; the study attempted to elucidate the incidence of and risk factors for various diseases among the Japanese population

Exclusion criteria

Diabetes at baseline, missing data at baseline

Notes

Baseline data for the total cohort (N = 6241)

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Study participation: description of source population or population of interest

Low risk

Healthy Japanese government employees who underwent annual examinations for health screening

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

Scarce data

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

IFG: FPG 5.6–6.9 or FPG 6.1–6.9; HbA1c 5.7 ‐6.4 or 6.0–6.4; IFG/HbA1c = 'prediabetes'

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%; self‐reported clinician‐diagnosed diabetes

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

Low risk

Cumulative incidence, incidence rate, hazard ratio

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Cox regression, multivariate model
Inoue 1996

Name of study

None

Inclusion criteria

Non‐obese participants with IGT and 22 normal control persons were selected from the participants of a health screening programme

Exclusion criteria

People with liver or kidney diseases

Notes

Baseline data for the IGT cohort (N = 37)

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Study participation: description of source population or population of interest

Unclear risk

Participants of a health screening programme

Study participation: description of glycaemic status at baseline

Low risk

Yes

Study participation: adequate description of sampling frame & recruitment

Unclear risk

Scarce data

Study participation: adequate description of period & recruitment place

Unclear risk

Scarce data

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

IGT

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: ≥ 7.8 to < 11.1 (presumed WHO 1985)

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

IGT: ≥ 11.1 (presumed WHO 1985)

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

Not reported, cumulative incidence data

Study confounding: clear definitions of important confounders provided

Unclear risk

Not reported

Study confounding: measurement of confounders valid & reliable

Unclear risk

Not reported

Study confounding: same method & setting for measurements of confounders for all study participants

Unclear risk

Not reported

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

Not reported, cumulative incidence data

Study confounding: important potential confounders accounted for in the analysis

Unclear risk

Not reported

Statistical analysis & reporting: sufficient presentation of data to assess adequacy of the analytic strategy

Low risk

Cumulative incidence

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Kruskal‐Wallis test
Janghorbani 2015

Name of study

Isfahan Diabetes Prevention Study (IDPS)

Inclusion criteria

Participants with a family history of type 2 diabetes, being non‐diabetic

Exclusion criteria

Type 1 diabetes, pregnancy

Notes

Baseline data for i‐IFG, i‐IGT and IFG/IGT cohort (N = 770); first‐degree relatives of people with T2DM; data on the cohort without hypertension at baseline

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Study participation: description of source population or population of interest

Low risk

Ongoing cohort in central Iran to assess the various potential risk factors for diabetes in people with a family history of T2DM

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

Description of inclusion and exclusion criteria

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

i‐IGT: FPG < 5.6 and 2‐h PG 7.8–11.1; i‐IFG: 5.6–6.9 and 2‐h PG < 7.8; IFG/IGT: 5.6–6.9 and 2‐h PG 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

FPG ≥ 11.1; antihyperglycaemic medication; 2nd FPG ≥ 7.0; 2‐h PG ≥ 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 measured (age, sex, BMI, triglycerides, total cholesterol) (see Appendix 16 and Appendix 17)

Study confounding: important potential confounders accounted for in the analysis

Unclear risk

Some covariates measured (age, sex, BMI, triglycerides, total cholesterol) (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, hazard ratio

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Cox proportional hazards model
Jaruratanasirikul 2016

Name of study

None

Inclusion criteria

Obese Thai children and adolescents aged 8–15 years, Pediatric Endocrine Clinic at Songklanagarind Hospital (Hat Yai, Songkhia Thailand)

Exclusion criteria

No clinical findings of secondary obesity, not on corticosteroids

Notes

Baseline data for IGT cohort (N = 27)

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

Scarce data

Study attrition: reasons for loss to follow‐up provided

High risk

Not reported

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

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

(i)‐IGT: FPG < 5.6 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

FPG > 7.0; 2‐h PG ≥ 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

Cumulative incidence

Study confounding: clear definitions of important confounders provided

Unclear risk

Not reported

Study confounding: measurement of confounders valid & reliable

Unclear risk

Not reported

Study confounding: same method & setting for measurements of confounders for all study participants

Unclear risk

Not reported

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

Not reported

Study confounding: important potential confounders accounted for in the analysis

Unclear risk

Not reported

Statistical analysis & reporting: sufficient presentation of data to assess adequacy of the analytic strategy

Low risk

Cumulative incidence

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Cox regression analysis for ROC curves (cut‐off FPG levels)
Jeong 2010

Name of study

None

Inclusion criteria

People older 20 years living in the rural area of Dalseong County near Daegu visiting community health centres

Exclusion criteria

Not reported

Notes

1287 participants were re‐evaluated in 2008 and 187 new participants "added to the study"; baseline data for participants with incident diabetes (N = 135)

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Study participation: description of source population or population of interest

Low risk

Population‐based survey to determine the prevalence and incidence of 'prediabetes' and diabetes

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

Unclear risk

Only inclusion criteria described

Study attrition: description of attempts to collect information on participants who dropped out

High risk

Several surveys plus new recruitment; follow‐up rate 80.5%; no description of dropouts

Study attrition: reasons for loss to follow‐up provided

High risk

Not reported

Study attrition: adequate description of participants lost to follow‐up

High 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

IFG: FPG ≥ 5.6 to < 7.0; IGT: 2‐h PG ≥ 7.8 to < 11.1; 'prediabetes': IFG or IGT

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

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

Several covariates were measured (see Appendix 16 and Appendix 17)

Study confounding: clear definitions of important confounders provided

Unclear risk

Not reported

Study confounding: measurement of confounders valid & reliable

Unclear risk

Not reported

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

Odds ratio

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Logistic regression models
Jiamjarasrangsi 2008a

Name of study

None

Inclusion criteria

Individuals 35 years or older participating in the annual physical checkup at least twice during the years 2001–2005

Exclusion criteria

People with diabetes

Notes

Baseline data for total cohort becoming diabetic at follow‐up (N = 48)

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Study participation: description of source population or population of interest

Low risk

University hospital employees

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

IFG: FPG ≥ 5.6 to < 7.0

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

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

Logistic regression on hepatic enzymes; incidence rate: few covariates (see Appendix 16 and Appendix 17)

Study confounding: clear definitions of important confounders provided

Unclear risk

Logistic regression on hepatic enzymes

Study confounding: measurement of confounders valid & reliable

Unclear risk

Logistic regression on hepatic enzymes

Study confounding: same method & setting for measurements of confounders for all study participants

Unclear risk

Logistic regression on hepatic enzymes

Study confounding: appropriate methods used if missing confounder data imputed

Unclear risk

Logistic regression on hepatic enzymes

Study confounding: important potential confounders accounted for in study design

Unclear risk

lLogistic regression on hepatic enzymes

Study confounding: important potential confounders accounted for in the analysis

Unclear risk

Logistic regression on hepatic enzymes

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

Logistic regression (independent variables: hepatic enzymes) and Poisson regression analyses

Kim 2005

Name of study

None

Inclusion criteria

People visiting the Health Promotion Centre of Samsung Medical Center for a physical health check‐up

Exclusion criteria

Diabetes

Notes

Baseline data for FPG group 4 (6.1–7.0) with baseline and follow‐up (N = 276)

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 (FPG categories)

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

Participation rate 20.9% in group 4; scarce data

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

IFG: FPG 6.1 to < 7.0 (group 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; antihyperglycaemic treatment

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

Several covariates measured (see Appendix 16 and Appendix 17)

Study confounding: clear definitions of important confounders provided

Unclear risk

Scarce data

Study confounding: measurement of confounders valid & reliable

Unclear risk

Scarce data

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

Low risk

Cumulative incidence, hazard ratio

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Cox regression analysis
Kim 2008

Name of study

None

Inclusion criteria

Individuals undergoing a medical examination at Inha University Hospital with a follow‐up medical examination 2 years later

Exclusion criteria

Individuals diagnosed with diabetes at baseline

Notes

Baseline data for IFG5.6/IFG6.1 cohort (N = 1335/N = 494)

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Study participation: description of source population or population of interest

Low risk

Participants who underwent a medical examination at Inha University Hospital and had either NGT or IFG

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

Participants diagnosed with diabetes in 2002 were excluded

Study attrition: reasons for loss to follow‐up provided

Unclear risk

Scarce data

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

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

IFG5.6: FPG 5.6–7.0; IFG6.1: FPG 6.1–7.0

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

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

Measurement of cumulative incidence

Study confounding: clear definitions of important confounders provided

Unclear risk

Not reported

Study confounding: measurement of confounders valid & reliable

Unclear risk

Not reported

Study confounding: same method & setting for measurements of confounders for all study participants

Unclear risk

Not reported

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

Not reported

Study confounding: important potential confounders accounted for in the analysis

Unclear risk

Measurement of cumulative incidence

Statistical analysis & reporting: sufficient presentation of data to assess adequacy of the analytic strategy

Low risk

Cumulative incidence

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

ROC curves for predicting the future onset of diabetes
Kim 2014

Name of study

None

Inclusion criteria

Pre‐screened individuals with 'prediabetes' visiting the diabetes clinic at Seoul National University Bundang Hospital (SNUB) in 2005/06 after they were diagnosed with prediabetes at their health check‐up or primary clinic

Exclusion criteria

Taking oral hypoglycaemic agents or insulin

Notes

Baseline data for i‐IFG (N = 158)/i‐IGT (N = 65)/IFG/IGT (N = 119)/i‐HbA1c (N = 64); total: N = 406

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Study participation: description of source population or population of interest

Low risk

Pres‐screened individuals with 'prediabetes'

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

Pre‐defined participants with intermediate hyperglycaemia

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

i‐IFG: FPG 5.6–6.9 and 2‐h PG < 7.8; i‐IGT: 2‐h PG 7.8–11.1 and FPG < 5.6; IFG/IGT: combined glucose intolerance; 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; HbA1c ≥ 6.5

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

For C‐peptide

Study confounding: clear definitions of important confounders provided

Unclear risk

For C‐peptide

Study confounding: measurement of confounders valid & reliable

Unclear risk

For C‐peptide

Study confounding: same method & setting for measurements of confounders for all study participants

Unclear risk

For C‐peptide

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

For C‐peptide

Study confounding: important potential confounders accounted for in the analysis

Unclear risk

For C‐peptide

Statistical analysis & reporting: sufficient presentation of data to assess adequacy of the analytic strategy

Low risk

Cumulative incidence

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Multiple logistic regression for association of T2DM development and C‐peptide levels
Kim 2016a

Name of study

None

Inclusion criteria

Medical examinations at the Health Screening and Promotion Center at Asan Medical Center (Seoul, Korea)

Exclusion criteria

History of diabetes mellitus, taking antihyperglycaemic medications, FPG ≥ 7.0 mmol/L or HbA1c ≥ 6.5% at baseline

Notes

2 baseline data cohorts: 'prediabetes' by FPG and HbA1c (N = 3544 and N = 1713)

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Study participation: description of source population or population of interest

Unclear risk

Participants who underwent medical examinations in a health screening and promotion centre

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; HbA1c 5.7–6.4

Glycaemic status measurement: same method and setting of measurement of the glycaemic status for all study participants

Low risk

FPG ≥ 7.0; HbA1c ≥ 6.5; antihyperglycaemic medications

Outcome measurement: clear definition of the outcome provided

Low risk

Yes

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

Several 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

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

Low risk

Cumulative incidence, odds ratio

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Multivariate logistic regression
Kleber 2010

Name of study

None

Inclusion criteria

Obese children and adolescents aged 10‐17 years with IGT attending the outpatient centre (Department of Paediatric Nutrition Medicine, Witten/Herdecke Germany)

Exclusion criteria

Not reported

Notes

Baseline data for IGT cohort (N = 79)

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Study participation: description of source population or population of interest

Low risk

Obese white children and adolescents with IGT attending an outpatient centre

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

Unclear risk

Time of recruitment unclear

Study participation: adequate description of inclusion & exclusion criteria

Unclear risk

No exclusion criteria reported

Study attrition: description of attempts to collect information on participants who dropped out

Low risk

Probably no dropouts

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

IGT: 2‐h PG > 7.7: IFG: FPG ≥ 5.5

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

T2DM by ADA 2000 guidelines

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

Study confounding: clear definitions of important confounders provided

Unclear risk

Not reported

Study confounding: measurement of confounders valid & reliable

Unclear risk

Not reported

Study confounding: same method & setting for measurements of confounders for all study participants

Unclear risk

Not reported

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

Not reported

Study confounding: important potential confounders accounted for in the analysis

Unclear risk

Not reported

Statistical analysis & reporting: sufficient presentation of data to assess adequacy of the analytic strategy

Low risk

Cumulative incidence

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Multiple linear regression
Kleber 2011

Name of study

None

Inclusion criteria

Obese white children with IGT without medication or endocrine/syndromal disorders, aged 10‐17 years not participating in the intervention part of the study

Exclusion criteria

Children in the intervention part of the study

Notes

Baseline data for IFG cohort (N = 128)

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Study participation: description of source population or population of interest

Low risk

Obese children and adolescents with IGT not attending an intervention trial

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

Unclear 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: not reported (presumed 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

"ADA" (2000 criteria ‐ 2‐h PG ≥ 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

Measurement of cumulative incidence

Study confounding: clear definitions of important confounders provided

Unclear risk

Not reported

Study confounding: measurement of confounders valid & reliable

Unclear risk

Npt reported

Study confounding: same method & setting for measurements of confounders for all study participants

Unclear risk

Not reported

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

Not reported

Study confounding: important potential confounders accounted for in the analysis

Unclear risk

Not reported

Statistical analysis & reporting: sufficient presentation of data to assess adequacy of the analytic strategy

Low risk

Cumulative incidence

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Multiple linear regression
Ko 1999

Name of study

None

Inclusion criteria

Chinese participants with IGT

Exclusion criteria

Not reported

Notes

Letter to the editor

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Study participation: description of source population or population of interest

Low risk

Chinese participants with IGT

Study participation: description of glycaemic status at baseline

Low risk

WHO/NDGG 1979

Study participation: adequate description of sampling frame & recruitment

Unclear risk

Scarce data

Study participation: adequate description of period & recruitment place

Low risk

Yes

Study participation: adequate description of inclusion & exclusion criteria

Unclear risk

Only inclusion criteria described

Study attrition: description of attempts to collect information on participants who dropped out

Unclear risk

Not reported (IGT cohort)

Study attrition: reasons for loss to follow‐up provided

Unclear risk

Not reported (IGT cohort)

Study attrition: adequate description of participants lost to follow‐up

Unclear risk

Not reported (IGT cohort)

Study attrition: no important differences between participants who completed the study and those who did not

Unclear risk

Not applicable (IGT cohort)

Glycaemic status measurement: provision of clear definition or description of glycaemic status

Low risk

IGT (WHO/NDDG 1979 definition)

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

Yes

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

Assumed WHO/NDDG 1979 definition

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

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

Cumulative incidence

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Unclear risk

Cox regression analysis (to predict the progression to diabetes with age, sex, BMI, blood pressure, HbA1c, FPG, 1‐h PG and 2‐h PG as predictor variables)

Ko 2001

Name of study

None

Inclusion criteria

The Diabetes and Endocrine Centre of the prince of Wales Hospital in Hong Kong screened individuals with risk factors for glucose intolerance (family history of diabetes, history of gestational diabetes, overweight, hypertension) by OGTT

Exclusion criteria

Diabetes at baseline

Notes

Baseline data for IFG cohort (N = 55)

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Study participation: description of source population or population of interest

Low risk

Individuals with risk factors for glucose intolerance undergoing screening for diabetes

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

Unclear risk

Not reported

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

IFG: FPG 6.1–6.9

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

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

Measurement of cumulative incidence

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

No ratios reported

Study confounding: important potential confounders accounted for in the analysis

Unclear risk

No ratios reported

Statistical analysis & reporting: sufficient presentation of data to assess adequacy of the analytic strategy

Low risk

Cumulative incidence

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Kaplan‐Meier analysis, Cox regression analysis (to predict the progression to diabetes with age, sex, BMI, blood pressure, FPG, gestational diabetes, HbA1c, smoking habit and IFG status being independent variables ‐ no hazard ratios provided)

Larsson 2000

Name of study

None

Inclusion criteria

Postmenopausal women aged 55–57 years in a health screening programme; random sample of 265/1843 invited for follow‐up (new OGTT); 1843 women were grouped according to WHO and ADA glucose tolerance criteria

Exclusion criteria

Not reported

Notes

Baseline data for (i)‐IGT (N = 66)/(i)‐IFG (N = 42)/IFG/IGT (N = 30); 265 follow‐up participants were randomly sampled from each glucose tolerance group of the original cohort and invited for follow‐up; NGT at baseline vs follow‐up: FPG < 5.3 vs < 6.1; FPG 5.3: 15% conversion factor as recommended by the WHO (blood glucose > plasma glucose)

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Study participation: description of source population or population of interest

Unclear risk

Postmenopausal women participating in a health screening programme; follow‐up: a random sample of the original cohort

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

Unclear risk

No exclusion criteria reported

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

(i)‐IFG: BG 5.3–5.9 and 2‐h BG < 7.8; (i)‐IGT: FPG < 5.3 and 2‐h BG 7.8–11.0; IFG/IGT: BG 5.3–5.9 and 2‐h BG 7.8–11.0

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

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

Measurement of cumulative incidence

Study confounding: clear definitions of important confounders provided

Unclear risk

Not reported

Study confounding: measurement of confounders valid & reliable

Unclear risk

Not reported

Study confounding: same method & setting for measurements of confounders for all study participants

Unclear risk

Not reported

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

Not reported

Study confounding: important potential confounders accounted for in the analysis

Unclear risk

Not reported

Statistical analysis & reporting: sufficient presentation of data to assess adequacy of the analytic strategy

Low risk

Cumulative incidence

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Chi‐squared test
Latifi 2016

Name of study

None

Inclusion criteria

Residents aged over 20 years

Exclusion criteria

Not reported

Notes

Baseline for prediabetic cohort becoming diabetic at follow‐up

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Study participation: description of source population or population of interest

Low risk

First phase of prevalence study of the metabolic syndrome and its related factors in Ahvaz Diabetes Research Centre, Iran

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

Unclear risk

No exclusion criteria reported

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

5.6 ≤ FPG < 7.0

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; 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

Unclear risk

Several 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 (see Appendix 16 and Appendix 17)

Study confounding: important potential confounders accounted for in the analysis

Unclear risk

Some covariates (see Appendix 16 and Appendix 17)

Statistical analysis & reporting: sufficient presentation of data to assess adequacy of the analytic strategy

Unclear risk

Cumulative incidence, incidence rate

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Unclear risk

Multiple logistic regression of factors affecting the incidence of diabetes and prediabetes among healthy people in phase 1 (baseline)

Lecomte 2007

Name of study

None

Inclusion criteria

People with IFG recruited from medical check‐ups by the French social security system in the 9 preventive health centres of IRSA (Institut Interrégional pur la Santé)

Exclusion criteria

No personal history of diabetes, no hypoglycaemic drug treatment

Notes

Baseline data for IFG cohort attending both examinations (N = 743)

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

Yes

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

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

IFG: FPG 6.1–6.9; no personal history of diabetes; no hypoglycaemic treatment

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; personal history of diabetes; antihyperglycaemic treatment

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

Measurement of cumulative incidence

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

Univariate analyses, some covariates measured (see Appendix 16 and Appendix 17)

Study confounding: important potential confounders accounted for in the analysis

Unclear risk

Some covariates, univariate analyses (see Appendix 16 and Appendix 17)

Statistical analysis & reporting: sufficient presentation of data to assess adequacy of the analytic strategy

Low risk

Cumulative incidence

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Logistic regression, univariate analyses on risk factors for developing diabetes
Lee 2016

Name of study

None

Inclusion criteria

Individuals undergoing health checkups at a single medical institution (Gangneung Asian Hospital)

Exclusion criteria

Previously diagnosed with diabetes, history of diabetes medication use, only 1 measurement

Notes

Baseline data for the total cohort (N = 3497)

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

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

HbA1c ≥ 6.5

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

Measurement of cumulative incidence

Study confounding: clear definitions of important confounders provided

Low risk

Yes for coffee consumption

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

1 covariate

Study confounding: important potential confounders accounted for in the analysis

Unclear risk

No ratios reported

Statistical analysis & reporting: sufficient presentation of data to assess adequacy of the analytic strategy

Unclear risk

Cumulative incidence

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Kaplan‐Meier survival analysis for progression to diabetes according to coffee consumption
Leiva 2014

Name of study

Programa de Investigación de Factores de Riesgo de Enfermedad Cardiovascular (PIFRECV)

Inclusion criteria

Study participants were recruited in 2005 by the 'Programa de Investigación de Factores de Riesgo de Enfermedad Cardiovascular' (PIFRECV); participants had to have an FPG 5.6–6.9 mmol/L

Exclusion criteria

Diabetes, individuals on corticosteroid treatment, pregnant women, individuals with cardiovascular complications

Notes

Most baseline data for cohort becoming diabetic at follow‐up (N = 94 with IFG)

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

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

IFG: 5.6–7.0 (low range: 5.6–6.1; high range: 6.1–6.9)

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 (on 2 consecutive days); HbA1c ≥ 6.5

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 were 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 planned (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, odds ratio

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Cox regression analysis (comparing 'high range' glycaemia (> 6.1 mmol/L) with 'low range' glycaemia (< 6.1 mmol/L)

Levitzky 2008

Name of study

Framingham Heart Study

Inclusion criteria

Participants were drawn from the Framingham Offspring cohort; participants who attended examinations (referred to as index examinations)

Exclusion criteria

Participants with CHD or diabetes

Notes

Baseline data for individuals on first exam, free of CVD (N = 4058)

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 reported

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

IFG5.6: FPG 5.6–6.9; IFG6.1: FPG 6.1–6.9

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; 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

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, odds ratio

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Pooled logistic regression, multivariable models
Li 2003

Name of study

Kinmen Study (study in Kin‐Chen, Kinmen, Taiwan)

Inclusion criteria

Individuals aged ≥ 30 years in Kin‐Chen; FPG 5.6–7.0 and 2‐h PG < 11.1

Exclusion criteria

Diabetes

Notes

Baseline data for i‐IGT (N = 118)/i‐IFG (N = 42)/IFG/IGT (N = 49) cohorts

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Study participation: description of source population or population of interest

Low risk

Yes, series of community‐based epidemiological surveys of diabetes

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

i‐iFG: FPG 6.1–7.0 and 2‐h PG < 7.8; i‐IGT: FPG < 6.1 and 2‐h PG 7.8–11.1; IFG/IGT: FPG 6.1–7.0 and 2‐h PG 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

FPG ≥ 7.0; 2‐h PG ≥ 11.0; 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

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, hazard ratio

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Cox proportional hazard model (hazard ratios of T2DM for relative insulin resistance, beta‐cell dysfunction and varying degrees of glucose intolerance)

Ligthart 2016

Name of study

Rotterdam study, targeting cardiovascular, endocrine, hepatic, neurological, ophthalmic, psychiatric, dermatological, oncological and respiratory diseases

Inclusion criteria

Community dwelling population aged 45/55 years and older in Rotterdam, no diabetes at baseline

Exclusion criteria

No valid baseline fasting glucose measurement, no informed consent

Notes

Baseline data for prediabetic cohort (N = 1382)

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

FBG > 6.0 and < 7.0; non‐fasting BG > 7.7 and < 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

FBG ≥ 7.0; non‐fasting BG ≥ 11.1; 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

Unclear risk

Some covariates for lifetime risk of diabetes (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

Unclear 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

For lifetime risk of diabetes

Study confounding: important potential confounders accounted for in the analysis

Unclear risk

For lifetime risk of diabetes

Statistical analysis & reporting: sufficient presentation of data to assess adequacy of the analytic strategy

Low risk

Incidence rate

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Unclear risk

Modified version of survival analysis to calculate the lifetime risk of diabetes
Lipska 2013

Name of study

Health, Aging, and Body Composition study (Health ABC)

Inclusion criteria

Aged 70–79 years from Pittsburgh (PA) and Memphis (TN); no difficulty performing activities of daily living, walking 0.25 mile (402 m) or climbing 10 steps without resting; no reported need of assistive devices (e.g. cane, walker); no active treatment for cancer in the prior 3 years; no life‐threatening illness; and no plans to leave the area for 3 years

Exclusion criteria

Not surviving baseline, diagnosed diabetes, missing HbA1c or FPG values at baseline, without adequate follow‐up after baseline

Notes

Baseline data for i‐IFG (N = 189)/i‐HbA1c5.7 (N = 207)/IFG/HbA1c (N = 169) cohorts

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 reported

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

i‐IFG: FPG 5.6–6.9 and HbA1c < 5.7; i‐HbA1c: 5.7–6.4 and FPG > 5.6; IFG and HbA1c: FPG 5.6–6.9 and 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

Single HbA1c ≥ 6.5 (years 2,6,7); self‐report of physician diagnosis (annually); antihyperglycaemic medication (years 1,2,4,6,7)

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

Multiple 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

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

Low risk

Cumulative incidence, odds ratio

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Multivariable logistic regression
Liu 2008

Name of study

None

Inclusion criteria

Individuals from the JiangSu province of China, aged 35–74 years, to trace the incidence of CVD and diabetes; individuals participating twice in the study

Exclusion criteria

Individuals suffering from cancer, severe disability, severe psychiatric disturbances; individuals with diabetes, missing data

Notes

Baseline data for non‐diabetic participants (N = 1844); men (N = 788)/women (N = 1056)

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

IFG 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; 2‐h PG ≥ 11.0; 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

Unclear risk

Some covariates measured (see Appendix 16 and Appendix 17)

Study confounding: clear definitions of important confounders provided

Unclear risk

Not reported

Study confounding: measurement of confounders valid & reliable

Unclear risk

Not reported

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

Cox proportional hazards regression
Liu 2014

Name of study

None

Inclusion criteria

Shanghai residents

Exclusion criteria

Not reported

Notes

Baseline data for the prediabetic cohort converting to T2DM (N = 78)

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

Unclear risk

Only inclusion criteria reported

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

Not reported

Glycaemic status measurement: provision of clear definition or description of glycaemic status

Unclear risk

"WHO criteria"

Glycaemic status measurement: valid and reliable method of glycaemic status measurement

Unclear risk

Scarce data

Glycaemic status measurement: continuous variables reported or appropriate cut points used

Unclear risk

Scarce data; IFG or GT

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

Unclear risk

"WHO criteria"

Outcome measurement: method of outcome measurement used valid & reliable

Unclear risk

Scarce data

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

Not reported

Study confounding: measurement of confounders valid & reliable

Unclear risk

Not reported

Study confounding: same method & setting for measurements of confounders for all study participants

Unclear risk

Not reported

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

Not reported

Study confounding: important potential confounders accounted for in the analysis

Unclear risk

Not reported

Statistical analysis & reporting: sufficient presentation of data to assess adequacy of the analytic strategy

Low risk

Cumulative incidence

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Analysis of variance
Liu 2016

Name of study

Beijing Longitudinal Study on Aging (BLSA)

Inclusion criteria

Chinese elders free of diabetes at baseline

Exclusion criteria

Diabetes at baseline

Notes

Baseline data for participants without diabetes at baseline (N = 1857)

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

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 6.1–6.9

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; self‐reported; 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

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

Hazard ratio

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Subdistribution hazards model
Liu 2017

Name of study

China Multicenter Collaborative Study of Cardiovascular Epidemiology (ChinaMUCA)

Inclusion criteria

2 studies: China Multicenter Collaborative Study of Cardiovascular Epidemiology (ChinaMUCA) study and the China Cardiovascular Health Study

Exclusion criteria

Individuals with missing baseline glucose information, individuals from Deyang, Sichuan (earthquake) and individuals with ASCVD at baseline

Notes

Baseline data for IFG cohort at baseline (N = 3607)

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

Participants lost to follow‐up e.g. were younger, had lower BMI levels and higher physical activity levels

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

FBG 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

FBG ≥ 7.0; using insulin/antihyperglycaemic medications; self‐reported

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

Odds ratio

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Cox proportional hazard regression
Lorenzo 2003

Name of study

San Antonio Heart Study (SAHS)

Inclusion criteria

Mexican‐Americans and non‐Hispanic whites participating in a study of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease

Exclusion criteria

Phase 1 participants (waist circumference was not measured), and those in phase 2 with diabetes at baseline

Notes

Baseline data for cohort converting to T2DM (N = 195)

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

Scarce data

Study attrition: reasons for loss to follow‐up provided

Unclear risk

Scarce data

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

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

IFG: FPG 6.1–6.9; IGT: 2‐h PG 7.8 to < 11.1 (WHO 1999)

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 PHG: ≥ 11.1 (WHO 1999/1985)

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, odds ratio

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Multiple logistic regression (diabetes risk of the metabolic syndrome and components of the metabolic syndrome)

Lyssenko 2005

Name of study

Botnia Study

Inclusion criteria

People with type 2 diabetes in western Finland were invited to participate together with their family members; nondiabetic individuals were invited (family members or 'controls' (spouses), aged 18–73 years; prospective visits every 2–3 years; at least 2 OGTTs

Exclusion criteria

MODY, individuals with missing data

Notes

Baseline data for IFG‐IGT individuals who converted to T2DM (N = 86)

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

Description of inclusion and exclusion criteria

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

IFG: FPG ≥ 6.1 (WHO 1999 criteria)

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

WHO 1999 criteria

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

Univariate analyses

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

Univariate analyses

Study confounding: important potential confounders accounted for in the analysis

Unclear risk

Univariate analyses

Statistical analysis & reporting: sufficient presentation of data to assess adequacy of the analytic strategy

Low risk

Cumulative incidence, hazard ratio

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Univariate Cox proportional hazards model (adjusted for BMI)
Magliano 2008

Name of study

Australian Diabetes, Obesity and Lifestyle Study (AusDiab)

Inclusion criteria

National population‐based survey in adults aged ≥ 25 years

Exclusion criteria

Participants refusing further contact, deceased, moved overseas or into a nursing facility classified for high care, had a terminal illness

Notes

Baseline data for cohort becoming diabetic at follow‐up (N = 224/5842)

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

Scarce data

Study attrition: reasons for loss to follow‐up provided

Unclear risk

Scarce data

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

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

IFG: FPG 6.1–6.9 and 2‐h PG < 7.8; 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

FPG ≥ 7.0; 2‐h PG ≥ 11.1; current 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

Multiple covariates included (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

Low risk

Yes

Study confounding: important potential confounders accounted for in the analysis

Low risk

ORs per SD changes in FPG and HbA1c

Statistical analysis & reporting: sufficient presentation of data to assess adequacy of the analytic strategy

Low risk

Cumulative incidence, incidence rate per year, odds ratio

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Multivariate logistic regression (logFRPG and logHbA1c)
Man 2017

Name of study

Singapore Malay Eye Study (SIMES)

Inclusion criteria

Malay adults in Singapore aged 40–80 years; SIMES aims to assess the prevalence, incidence, progression, associated factors and impact of major eye disease as well as access to eye care by Asian Malays

Exclusion criteria

Diabetes, missing data

Notes

Baseline data for incident diabetes cohort (N = 127)

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

Scarce data

Study attrition: reasons for loss to follow‐up provided

Unclear risk

Scarce data

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

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

HbA1c 5.7–6.4; no self‐reported diabetes or antihyperglycaemic medication

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

Random glucose ≥ 11.1 or HbA1c > 6.4; self‐reported history or 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

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

Not reported

Statistical analysis & reporting: sufficient presentation of data to assess adequacy of the analytic strategy

Low risk

Cumulative incidence, incidence rate, risk ratio

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Multivariate analyses using modified Poission regression models to estimate adjusted risk ratios

Marshall 1994

Name of study

San Luis Valley Diabetes Study

Inclusion criteria

The San Luis Valley Diabetes Study determined the prevalence and incidence of NIDDM among Hispanic and non‐Hispanic white adults; sample without prior diabetes diagnosis aged 30–74 years; IGT at the initial visit

Exclusion criteria

Unavailability of complete data

Notes

Baseline data for IGT cohort converting to T2DM (N = 20)

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

Scarce data

Study attrition: reasons for loss to follow‐up provided

Unclear risk

Scarce data

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

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

IGT: 2‐h PG ≥ 7.8 to < 11.1 (WHO 1985)

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

2‐h PG ≥ 11.1 (WHO 1985)

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

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

Cumulative incidence

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Multiple logistic regression (baseline dietary risk factors to predict the development of diabetes; glucose levels as continuous variables)

McNeely 2003

Name of study

Japanese American Community Diabetes Study

Inclusion criteria

Second‐generation (Nisei) and third‐generation (Sansei) Japanese‐American participants residing in Kong County, Washington

Exclusion criteria

Individuals with diabetes at baseline

Notes

Baseline data for cohort converting to T2DM at 5–6 years (N = 50)/10 years (N = 74)

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

Unclear risk

Scarce data

Study participation: adequate description of period & recruitment place

Unclear risk

Scarce data

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

Some difference 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

IFG: FPG ≥ 6.1 to < 7.0; IGT: 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

FPG ≥ 7.0; 2‐h PG ≥ 11.1; antihyperglycaemic medication prescribed by a physician

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

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

Cumulative incidence

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Logistic regression (ROC‐curves, clinical model)
Meigs 2003

Name of study

Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging (BLSA)

Inclusion criteria

Community dwelling volunteers, largely from the Baltimore (MD) and Washington, D.C. areas; primarily white middle‐ and upper‐middle socioeconomic class aged 21–96 years, being examined approximately every 2 years; open cohort design with dropouts replaced (around 1000 persons at each study cycle); attending at least 3 examinations and an OGTT within an 8‐year period

Exclusion criteria

2 or fewer OGTTs or > 4 years elapsed between any 2 OGTTs

Notes

Baseline data for the IFG‐IGT cohort (N = 265); follow‐up time: at least 6 years 77%, at least 10 years 44%, at least 16 years 16%, at least 20 years 4.5%

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

High risk

Scarce data

Study attrition: reasons for loss to follow‐up provided

Unclear risk

Scarce data

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

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

IFG: FPG 6.1–6.9 and 2‐h PG ≤ 7.8; IGT: FPG < 6.1 and 2‐h PG 7.8–11.0; IFG/IGT

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 (IFG‐IGT: diabetes defined by OGTT)

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 rates

Study confounding: clear definitions of important confounders provided

Unclear risk

Cumulative incidence, incidence rates

Study confounding: measurement of confounders valid & reliable

Unclear risk

Cumulative incidence, incidence rates

Study confounding: same method & setting for measurements of confounders for all study participants

Unclear risk

Cumulative incidence, incidence rates

Study confounding: appropriate methods used if missing confounder data imputed

Unclear risk

Cumulative incidence, incidence rates

Study confounding: important potential confounders accounted for in study design

Unclear risk

Cumulative incidence, incidence rates

Study confounding: important potential confounders accounted for in the analysis

Unclear risk

Cumulative incidence, incidence rates

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

Kaplan‐Meier product limit estimates
Mohan 2008

Name of study

Chennai Urban Population Study‐19 (CUPS‐19)

Inclusion criteria

Participants of 2 residential colonies in Chennai, India, representing the middle and lower income groups ≥ 20 years of age

Exclusion criteria

Individuals with diabetes

Notes

Baseline data for cohort becoming diabetic at follow‐up (N = 64/476)

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

IFG: FPG ≥ 6.1 to < 7; IGT: 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

FPG ≥ 7; 2‐h PG ≥ 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

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

Cox regression analysis (effects of various risk factors but not intermediate hyperglycaemia on diabetes)

Motala 2003

Name of study

None

Inclusion criteria

South African Indians, mainly living in Durban (1984); survey to determine the prevalence of NIDDM among South African Indians; non‐pregnant participants > 15 years of age

Exclusion criteria

Not reported

Notes

Baseline data for responders (both baseline and follow‐up examination) (N = 563)

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

Unclear risk

Only inclusion criteria reported

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 < 7.8 and 2‐h PG 7.8 to < 11.1 (WHO 1985)

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 ≥ 7.8; 2‐h PG ≥ 11.1 (WHO 1985)

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

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

Cumulative incidence

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Multiple logistic regression (to evaluate the effect of various predictor variables for type 2 diabetes)

Motta 2010

Name of study

Italian Longitudinal Study on Aging (ILSA)

Inclusion criteria

Elderly participants aged 65–84 years involved in ILSA studies

Exclusion criteria

Not reported

Notes

No baseline characteristics provided

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

Unclear risk

Only inclusion 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

IFG: 6.1 to < 7.0

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

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

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

Cumulative incidence

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

t‐test
Mykkänen 1993

Name of study

None

Inclusion criteria

Participants from Kuopio, Finland

Exclusion criteria

Diabetes at baseline, incomplete OGTT at the follow‐up examination

Notes

Baseline data for cohort developing T2DM (N = 69)

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

Scarce data

Study attrition: reasons for loss to follow‐up provided

Unclear risk

Scarce data

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

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

IGT: FPG < 7.8 and 2‐h PG 7.8–11.1 (WHO 1985)

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 ≥ 7.8; 2‐h PG ≥ 11.1 (WHO 1985)

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

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

Not reported

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

Cumulative incidence, odds ratio

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Unclear risk

ANCOVA, odds ratios (risk of developing diabetes associated with various risk factors)
Nakagami 2016

Name of study

Kurihashi Lifestyle Cohort Study

Inclusion criteria

Baseline health check‐ups at Kurihashi Hospital

Exclusion criteria

People < 30 years or ≥ 80 years, diabetes at baseline, people with chronic diseases, missing covariate data

Notes

Baseline data for cohort converting to T2DM (N = 99)

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

Unclear risk

Scarce data

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

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

Low risk

Yes

Glycaemic status measurement: continuous variables reported or appropriate cut points used

Low risk

FPG 5.5–6.9; 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, HbA1c ≥ 6.5; physician diagnosis of diabetes

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 measured (see Appendix 16 and Appendix 17)

Study confounding: important potential confounders accounted for in the analysis

Unclear risk

Some covariates measured (see Appendix 16 and Appendix 17)

Statistical analysis & reporting: sufficient presentation of data to assess adequacy of the analytic strategy

Low risk

Cumulative incidence, hazard ratio (associated with a 1 SD increase in the levels of FPG or HbA1c)

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Cox proportional hazards models
Nakanishi 2004

Name of study

None

Inclusion criteria

Employees of Company A, one of the largest building contractors in Japan (in major cities around Japan); Japanese men aged 35–59 years with no prior history of coronary heart disease or stroke

Exclusion criteria

Not participating in all the consecutive annual health examinations

Notes

Baseline characteristics for IFG cohort (N = 246)

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

Unclear risk

Inclusion and exclusion criteria described

Study attrition: description of attempts to collect information on participants who dropped out

Unclear risk

Scarce data

Study attrition: reasons for loss to follow‐up provided

Unclear risk

Scarce data

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

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

IFG: FPG 6.1–6.9

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; 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

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 measured (see Appendix 16 and Appendix 17)

Study confounding: important potential confounders accounted for in the analysis

Unclear risk

Some covariates measured (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 (adjusted for all other components and clustering of components of the metabolic syndrome at study entry)

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Cox proportional hazards model
Noda 2010

Name of study

Japanese Public‐Health Center‐based prospective (Diabetes) Study (JPHC Study)

Inclusion criteria

All registered Japanese inhabitants in 11 public health center areas aged 40–59 years old in cohort I and 40–69 years old in cohort II; inhabitants who received annual health‐checkups; authors included those who were 51–70 years of age at the time of the baseline survey of diabetes

Exclusion criteria

Missing data, casual blood samples in any of the 2 health check‐ups; known diabetes or an FPG of 125 mg/dL or more at baseline

Notes

Baseline characteristics for the total cohort (N = 2207)

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

Unclear 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

Unclear risk

Scarce data

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

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

Low risk

Yes

Glycaemic status measurement: continuous variables reported or appropriate cut points used

Low risk

Taken from table 2: FPG levels: IFG 5.6 and 6.1

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

FPG ≥ 7.0; HbA1c ≥ 6.1%; self‐reported

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

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

Cumulative incidence

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Crude incidence, ROC curves
Park 2006

Name of study

None

Inclusion criteria

Korean men employed at a semiconductor manufacturing facility in Korea participating in an annual health examination at a university hospital

Exclusion criteria

Diabetes, failing to undergo subsequent examinations within 2 years; missing data

Notes

Baseline data for incident diabetic participants with IFG at baseline (N = 40)

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

Unclear risk

Scarce data

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

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

Low risk

Yes

Glycaemic status measurement: continuous variables reported or appropriate cut points used

Low risk

IFG: FPG ≥ 5.6

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

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

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

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

Cox proportional hazards models (for sequential changes in FPG levels)
Peterson 2017

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
Qian 2012

Name of study

None

Inclusion criteria

Shanghai residents

Exclusion criteria

Not reported

Notes

Baseline data for cohort progressing to T2DM (N = 377)

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

Unclear risk

Only inclusion criteria reported

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

i‐IFG: 6.1–6.9 and 2‐h PG < 7.8; i‐IGT: < 6.1 and 2‐h PG 7.8–11.0; IFG/IGT: 6.1–6.9 and 2‐h PG 7.8–11.0

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

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

Study confounding: clear definitions of important confounders provided

Unclear risk

Cumulative incidence

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

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

Cumulative incidence

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Logistic regression (to assess the potential contributing factors to diabetes incidence)
Rajala 2000

Name of study

None

Inclusion criteria

Inhabitants in Oulu (northern Finland) recruited from the official population register to investigate the prevalence of diabetes and IGT, reasons for early retirement and the prevalence of depression

Exclusion criteria

Previoulsy diagnosed diabetic people

Notes

Only few baseline data for IGT cohort (N = 171); new cases identified by OGTTs in 1994 and 1996–8

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

Prevalence of hypertension was higher among people lost to follow‐up

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: 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

2‐h PG ≥ 11.1; 2 × FPG ≥ 6.7

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

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

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

Multiple logistic regression (for effects of hypertension and antihypertensive medications)
Ramachandran 1986

Name of study

None

Inclusion criteria

Indian individuals with IGT

Exclusion criteria

Not reported

Notes

Baseline data for the diabetic cohort at follow‐up (N = 39)

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Study participation: description of source population or population of interest

High risk

Not reported

Study participation: description of glycaemic status at baseline

Low risk

Yes

Study participation: adequate description of sampling frame & recruitment

Unclear risk

Scarce data

Study participation: adequate description of period & recruitment place

Unclear risk

Scarce data

Study participation: adequate description of inclusion & exclusion criteria

Unclear risk

Only inclusion criteria reported

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

IGT: 7.8–11.0 (presumed NDDG 1979)

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

2‐h PG > 11.0 (presumed NDDG 1979)

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

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

Cumulative incidence

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Unclear risk

Not reported
Rasmussen 2008

Name of study

Anglo‐Danish‐Dutch study of Intensive Treatment in People with Screen Detected Diabetes in Primary Care (ADDITION)

Inclusion criteria

Population‐based high‐risk screening and intervention study for type 2 diabetes; persons aged 40–69 years registered with the participating practices in 5 counties in Denmark with a risk score of 5 points or more; measurement of fasting capillary blood glucose and OGTT; annual glucose measurement recommended for individuals with IFG and IGT; individuals with 2 diabetic glucose values on separate days were included in the intervention programme

Exclusion criteria

Severe concurrent illness, alcohol abuse or subsequently treated by general practitioners not in the addition study; individuals with diabetes

Notes

Baseline data for IFG (N = 607)/IGT cohort (N = 903)

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

Unclear risk

Scarce data

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

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

Unclear risk

Yes

Glycaemic status measurement: continuous variables reported or appropriate cut points used

Low risk

IFG (i‐IFG): FBG 5.6 to < 6.1 and 2‐h BG < 7.8; IGT (i‐IGT): FBG < 6.1 and 2‐h BG 7.8 to < 11.1; IFG/IGT

Glycaemic status measurement: same method and setting of measurement of the glycaemic status for all study participants

Unclear risk

Yes

Outcome measurement: clear definition of the outcome provided

Low risk

FBG ≥ 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

Cumulative incidence, incidence rate

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

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

Regression models (for sequential changes in some covariates)
Rathmann 2009

Name of study

Kooperative Gesundheitsforschung in der Region Augsburg (KORA S4/F4)

Inclusion criteria

People living in Augsburg and surroundings; KORA was follow‐up of MONICA WHO‐Project (Monitoring Trends and determinants in Cardiovascular Disease); S1: 25–64 years, S2/S3/S4: 25–74 years

Exclusion criteria

People with known diabetes

Notes

Baseline characteristics for total cohort (participants of the follow‐up; age‐group 55–74 years; N = 887)

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

Some differences 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

IFG: FPG 6.1–6.9; IGT: 2‐h PG 7.8 to < 11.1; 'prediabetes': i‐IFG, i‐IGT and IFG/IGT

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; validated physician 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

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 analyses (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, odds ratio

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Logistic regression models
Rijkelijkhuizen 2007

Name of study

Hoorn Study

Inclusion criteria

General Dutch population (Hoorn) aged 50–75 years at baseline; participants completing both measurements in 1989 and 1996

Exclusion criteria

People using antihyperglycaemic medications or diet for diabetes were marked as known diabetes mellitus; missing information of plasma glucose values

Notes

Baseline data for IFG6.1 (N = 149)/IFG5.6 (N = 488)

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

No substantial differences

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

IFG5.6: FPG 5.6–7.0; IFG6.1: FPG 6.1–7.0; IGT: 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

FPG ≥ 7.0; 2‐h PG: ≥ 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, odds ratio

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Cox proportional hazards models
Sadeghi 2015

Name of study

Isfahan Cohort Study (ICS), baseline survey of the Isfahan Healthy Heart Program (IHHP)

Inclusion criteria

Participants of the baseline survey of the Isfahan Healthy Heart Program, a community trial for prevention and control of CVD

Exclusion criteria

Diabetes at baseline

Notes

Baseline data for prediabetic cohort at baseline becoming diabetic at follow‐up (N = 131)

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

Unclear risk

Scarce data

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

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

IFG: FPG ≥ 5.5 and < 7.0; IGT: 2‐h OGTT ≥ 7.8 and < 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

FPG > 7.0; 2‐h OGTT > 11.1; IFG/IGT; 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

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

Low risk

Stochastic regression methods

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, odds ratio

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Multivariate logistic regression
Sasaki 1982

Name of study

None

Inclusion criteria

Epidemiological survey on diabetes mellitus in Osaka, Japan and follow‐up study

Exclusion criteria

Not reported

Notes

Baseline data for the IGT cohort (N = 13)

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

Unclear risk

Only inclusion 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

Unclear risk

Scarce data

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

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 < 7.8 and 2‐h PG 7.8–11.1 (WHO 1980)

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 ≥ 7.8 or 2‐h PG ≥ 11.1 (WHO 1980)

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

Study confounding: clear definitions of important confounders provided

Unclear risk

Scarce data

Study confounding: measurement of confounders valid & reliable

Unclear risk

Scarce data

Study confounding: same method & setting for measurements of confounders for all study participants

Unclear risk

Scarce data

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

Cumulative incidence

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

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Unclear risk

Multiple logistic regression (standardised regression coefficients for single covariates)
Sato 2009

Name of study

Kansai Healthcare Study

Inclusion criteria

Japanese male employees of a company in the area of Kansai, aged 40–55 years, not taking an oral antihyperglycaemic or insulin at study entry and considered to be involved in sedentary jobs

Exclusion criteria

Not reported

Notes

Baseline data for cohort becoming diabetic at follow‐up (N = 659/6804); non‐standard categories for elevated HbA1c values were used (Table 1, p 645 of the publication)

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

Unclear risk

Only inclusion criteria reported

Study attrition: description of attempts to collect information on participants who dropped out

Unclear risk

Scarce data

Study attrition: reasons for loss to follow‐up provided

Unclear risk

Scarce data

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

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

Table 1: IFG: FPG group 6.1–6.9; HbA1c‐group: 6.0–6.4

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; 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

Low risk

Odds ratio

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Multiple logistic regression (FPG, HbA1c categories)
Schranz 1989

Name of study

Study within the WHO‐assisted National Diabetes Programme

Inclusion criteria

Within the framework of the WHO‐assisted National Diabetes Programme a cohort of Maltese people was investigated

Exclusion criteria

Known diabetic persons

Notes

Baseline data for diabetic cohort at follow‐up (N = 166)

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

Unclear risk

Scarce data

Study participation: adequate description of period & recruitment place

Low risk

Yes

Study participation: adequate description of inclusion & exclusion criteria

Low risk

Yes

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

IGT: 2‐h PG ≥ 7.8 to < 11.1 (WHO 1985)

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

2‐h PG ≥ 11.1 (WHO 1985)

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

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

Cumulative incidence

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Unclear risk

Not reported
Sharifi 2013

Name of study

Zanjan Healthy Heart Study

Inclusion criteria

Participants from the Zanjan Healthy Heart Study, aged 21–75 years, individuals with IFG

Exclusion criteria

Not reported

Notes

Baseline data for active participants (N = 123) of the IFG cohort

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

Unclear risk

Only inclusion criteria reported

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

High attrition rate (> 50%)

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

FPG 5.6–7.0

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 measurements); diabetes diagnosis based on documents

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

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

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

Cumulative incidence

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Unclear risk

Logistic regression (BMI and physical activity for prediction of diabetes)
Shin 1997

Name of study

Yonchon study

Inclusion criteria

Individuals living in Yonchon County (South Korea), free of diabetes aged ≥ 30 years

Exclusion criteria

Diabetes

Notes

Baseline data for individuals converting to T2DM (N = 67)

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

Scarce data

Study attrition: reasons for loss to follow‐up provided

Unclear risk

Scarce data

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

Not reported

Glycaemic status measurement: provision of clear definition or description of glycaemic status

Unclear risk

Scarce data

Glycaemic status measurement: valid and reliable method of glycaemic status measurement

Unclear risk

Scarce data

Glycaemic status measurement: continuous variables reported or appropriate cut points used

Unclear risk

Assumed WHO 1985 criteria

Glycaemic status measurement: same method and setting of measurement of the glycaemic status for all study participants

Unclear risk

Scarce data

Outcome measurement: clear definition of the outcome provided

Low risk

"WHO criteria"; antihyperglycaemic medication

Outcome measurement: method of outcome measurement used valid & reliable

Unclear risk

Scarce data

Outcome measurement: same method & setting of outcome measurement for all study participants

Unclear risk

Scarce data

Study confounding: important confounders measured

Unclear risk

Cumulative incidence

Study confounding: clear definitions of important confounders provided

Unclear 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

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

Cumulative incidence

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Multiple logistic regression (1 mmol/L difference for FPG and 2‐h plasma glucose)
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
Song 2016a

Name of study

None

Inclusion criteria

Survey of the prevalence of T2DM in an urban community; eligible permanent inhabitants 15–74 years

Exclusion criteria

Not reported

Notes

Baseline data for prediabetic cohort (N = 334)

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

Unclear risk

Only inclusion criteria reported

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

IFG: FG 5.6–6.9; IGT: 2‐h G 7.8–11.0

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

IFG ≥ 7.0; 2‐h G ≥ 11.0; HbA1c ≥ 6.5; self‐reported

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

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

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

Cumulative incidence

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Logistic regression models (sex‐related risk factors associated with the development of diabetes)

Soriguer 2008

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
Stengard 1992

Name of study

Finnish Cohorts of the Seven Countries Study

Inclusion criteria

Elderly Finnish men, survivors of the Finnish cohorts of the Seven‐Countries Study (studying mortality, morbidity and risk factor levels of cardiovascular diseases in different countries), aged 65–84 years at baseline

Exclusion criteria

Not reported

Notes

Baseline data for IGT cohort converting to T2DM (N = 17)

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

Unclear risk

Only inclusion criteria reported

Study attrition: description of attempts to collect information on participants who dropped out

Unclear risk

Scarce data

Study attrition: reasons for loss to follow‐up provided

Unclear risk

Scarce data

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

IGT: 2‐h PG 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

2‐h PG ≥ 11.1 (WHO 1985); antihyperglycaemic medications

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, odds ratio

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Multiple logistic regression
Söderberg 2004

Name of study

None

Inclusion criteria

Population based survey in Mauritius, 3 cohorts of nonpregnant participants aged 25–79 years with classifiable data from 2 separate surveys

Exclusion criteria

Not reported

Notes

Baseline data for cohort 1987–1998 (N = 2631), 10 years follow‐up; 3 cohorts 1987–1992 (N = 3680), 1992–1998 (N = 4178), 1987–1998 (N = 2631)

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

Unclear risk

Only inclusion criteria reported

Study attrition: description of attempts to collect information on participants who dropped out

Unclear risk

Scarce data

Study attrition: reasons for loss to follow‐up provided

Unclear risk

Scarce data

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

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

IFG: FPG ≥ 6.1 to < 7.0 and 2‐h PG < 7.8; IGT: FPF < 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

FPG ≥ 7.0; 2‐h PG ≥ 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

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

Calculation of incidence rate ratios, Poisson regression analysis to estimate sex effects between 1987 and 1998 allowing for adjustments

Toshihiro 2008

Name of study

None

Inclusion criteria

Japanese mal workers of a railroad company receiving a health‐check at Nishimatsuzono Clinic, IFG and/or IGT cohort

Exclusion criteria

People with type B or C hepatitis virus infections

Notes

Baseline data for cohort becoming diabetic at follow‐up (N = 36/128);participants with IFG and/or IGT were given advice about lifestyle modifications once or twice a year

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

IFG: FPG 6.1–6.9 and 2‐h PG < 7.8; IGT: FPG < 7.0 and 2‐h PG 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

FPG ≥ 7.0; 2‐h PG > 11.1; non‐fasting PG > 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

Cumulative incidence

Study confounding: clear definitions of important confounders provided

Low risk

Yes

Study confounding: measurement of confounders valid & reliable

Unclear 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

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

Cumulative incidence

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Cox proportional hazards model (multivariate analysis of independent risk factors and recovery factors)

Vaccaro 1999

Name of study

None

Inclusion criteria

Telephone company employees in the age range 40–59 years were screened in the province of Naples for major cardiovascular risk factors

Exclusion criteria

Taking antihyperglycaemic medication, previous diabetes diagnosis

Notes

Baseline data for total cohort (follow‐up examination; N = 560)

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

Those lost to follow‐up were older and more frequently women

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

Unusual thresholds

Glycaemic status measurement: continuous variables reported or appropriate cut points used

Unclear risk

IFG: FPG 5.6–6.0; IGT: 2‐h PG 6.7–9.9

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; 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

Unclear risk

Not reported

Study confounding: clear definitions of important confounders provided

Unclear risk

Not reported

Study confounding: measurement of confounders valid & reliable

Unclear risk

Not reported

Study confounding: same method & setting for measurements of confounders for all study participants

Unclear risk

Not reported

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

Not reported

Study confounding: important potential confounders accounted for in the analysis

Unclear risk

Not reported

Statistical analysis & reporting: sufficient presentation of data to assess adequacy of the analytic strategy

Low risk

Cumulative incidence, odds ratio (probably unadjusted)

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Unclear risk

Quote: "standard methods"
Valdes 2008

Name of study

Asturias Study (Asturias)

Inclusion criteria

Survey of diabetes and cardiovascular risk factors in the principality of Asturias, northern Spain; participants from basic health area

Exclusion criteria

Type 1 diabetes, pregnancy, severe disease, hospitalisation, use of diabetogenic drugs, missing data; diabetes

Notes

Baseline data for IFG 5.6–6.1 (N = 114)/IFG 6.1–6.9 (N = 52)

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

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

IFG5.6: 5.6–6.1; IFG6.1: 6.1–6.9

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; 2‐h PG ≥ 11.1; clinical diabetes diagnosis; antihyperglycaemic medication, diet

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, odds ratio

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Multivariate logistic regression
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

Viswanathan 2007

Name of study

None

Inclusion criteria

Programme on primary prevention of diabetes in the population and in high risk people (positive family history of diabetes); individuals with at least 2 follow‐up visits; participants were given advice on preventive measures such as dietary modifications and regular exercise

Exclusion criteria

Known history of diabetes, newly diagnosed diabetes during screening

Notes

Baseline data for IGT group (N = 619); participants were given advice on preventive measures such as dietary modifications and regular exercise

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

Unclear risk

Scarce data

Study participation: adequate description of period & recruitment place

Unclear risk

Scarce data

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

IGT: 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

Unclear risk

Not defined, presumably by OGTT

Outcome measurement: method of outcome measurement used valid & reliable

Unclear risk

Scarce data

Outcome measurement: same method & setting of outcome measurement for all study participants

Unclear risk

Scarce data

Study confounding: important confounders measured

Unclear risk

Some covariates measured (see Appendix 16 and Appendix 17)

Study confounding: clear definitions of important confounders provided

Unclear risk

Not reported

Study confounding: measurement of confounders valid & reliable

Unclear risk

Not reported

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, odds ratio

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Multiple logistic regression, Cox regression analysis
Wang 2007

Name of study

Beijing Project as part of the National Diabetes Survey

Inclusion criteria

Inhabitants of Beijing aged 25 years or older

Exclusion criteria

Newly diagnosed diabetes or CHD at baseline, known diabetes

Notes

Baseline data for cohort with incident diabetes and no CHD (N = 67)

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

IFG: FPG 6.1–6.9; IGT: 2‐h PG 7.8–11.0

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

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, risk ratio

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Multiple logistic regression
Wang 2011

Name of study

Strong Heart Study (SHS)

Inclusion criteria

Data collected from American Indians at the baseline and second exams from those participants who had HbA1c and FPG measured

Exclusion criteria

Antihyperglycaemic medications, renal dialysis, kidney transplant

Notes

No baseline data reported

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

Unclear risk

Scarce data

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

Those lost to follow‐up had lower BMI

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: 5.6 to < 7.0; HbA1c 6.0 to < 6.5

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; FPG/HbA1c: ≥ 6.5 or FPG ≥ 7.0; 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

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

Odds ratio

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Logistic regression
Warren 2017

Name of study

Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study (ARIC)

Inclusion criteria

Adults aged 45–64 years from the communities of Jackson, MS; Forsyth County, NC; suburban Minneapolis, MN; and Washington County, MD, USA

Exclusion criteria

Participants with prevalent diabetes, chronic kidney disease, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, or peripheral arterial disease, those who were missing variables of interest, or those who fasted for < 10 h

Notes

2 different baseline cohorts; 4 prediabetes definitions (visit 2: IFG 5.6–6.9: N = 4112; HbA1c 5.7–6.4: N = 2027; visit 4: IFG 5.6–6.9: N = 2142; IGT: N = 2009)

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

Unclear risk

Scarce data

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

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 (ADA); FG 6.1–6.9 (WHO); 2‐h 7.8–11.0 (ADA); HbA1c 5.7–6.4 (ADA); 6.0–6.4 (IEC)

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

Unclear risk

Self‐report of physician diagnosis; antihyperglycaemic medication reported during a study visit or annual telephone call

Outcome measurement: method of outcome measurement used valid & reliable

Unclear risk

Missing lab measurements

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

Low 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

Hazard ratio

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Cox proportional hazards models
Wat 2001

Name of study

Hong Kong Cardiovascular Risk Factor Prevalence Study

Inclusion criteria

Follow‐up of the Hong Kong Cardiovascular Risk Factor Prevalence Study in Hong Kong Chinese aged 25–74 years; persons with IGT (matched controls from the same population with normal glucose tolerance), investigation of the development of appropriate population‐wide coronary heart disease prevention strategies and monitoring their long‐term impact

Exclusion criteria

Diabetes at baseline

Notes

Baseline data for IGT cohort (N = 322)

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

Scarce data

Study attrition: reasons for loss to follow‐up provided

Unclear risk

Scarce data

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

IGT: FPG < 7.8 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

FPG ≥ 7.8; 2‐h PG ≥ 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

Cumulative incidence

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

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

Cumulative incidence

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Logistic regression (per unit increase for some covariates)
Weiss 2005

Name of study

None

Inclusion criteria

Obese children and adolescents aged 4–18 years were recruited from the Yale Pediatric Obesity Clinic (New Haven, Conneticut, USA)

Exclusion criteria

Participants with medical conditions, using medications that may affect glucose metabolism before their first OGTT

Notes

Baseline data for IGT cohort (N = 33)

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Study participation: description of source population or population of interest

Unclear risk

Yes

Study participation: description of glycaemic status at baseline

Low risk

Yes

Study participation: adequate description of sampling frame & recruitment

Unclear risk

Scarce data

Study participation: adequate description of period & recruitment place

Unclear risk

Scarce data

Study participation: adequate description of inclusion & exclusion criteria

Low risk

Inclusion and exclusion criteria reported

Study attrition: description of attempts to collect information on participants who dropped out

Low risk

No dropouts

Study attrition: reasons for loss to follow‐up provided

Low risk

No dropouts

Study attrition: adequate description of participants lost to follow‐up

Low risk

No dropouts

Study attrition: no important differences between participants who completed the study and those who did not

Low risk

No dropouts

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 < 5.6 and 2‐h PG 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

FPG ≥ 7.0; 2‐h PG > 11.1; presentation of hyperglycaemia (more than 2 random glucose measurements > 11.1), glucosuria, polydipsia, and polyuria

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

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

Not reported

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

Cumulative incidence

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Mann‐Whitney U test and linear regression (to identify predictors of 2‐h glucose on the second OGTT)

Wheelock 2016

Name of study

Pima Indian Study (Gila River Indian Community ‐ near Phoenix, Arizona)

Inclusion criteria

Gila River Indian Community in Arizona (mostly Pima or Tohono Indians); children and adolescents 5–19 years who were nondiabetic at baseline and had at least 1 follow‐up examination

Exclusion criteria

Not reported

Notes

Baseline data for the full cohort (N = 5532); prediabetic cohort = non‐overweight (N = 37) + IGT group and overweight + IGT group (N = 132); 5–11 years/12–19 years); age‐stratified incidence data on overweight participants + IGT or overweight and either hypertension or hypercholesterolaemia + IGT (metabolic set (MSet))

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

Unclear risk

Only inclusion criteria described

Study attrition: description of attempts to collect information on participants who dropped out

Unclear risk

Scarce data

Study attrition: reasons for loss to follow‐up provided

Unclear risk

Scarce data

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

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

IGT: 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

FPG ≥ 7.0; 2‐h PG ≥ 11.1; previous 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

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

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

Cumulative incidence

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Cox regression model using each metabolic risk factor as a continuous variable; violation of the proportionality assumption was noted, therefore cumulative incidence rates were calculated from a Poisson regression model

Wong 2003

Name of study

Singapore Impaired Glucose Tolerance Follow‐up Study

Inclusion criteria

Representative sample of the Singapore population aged 18–69 years; persons with IGT and matched controls

Exclusion criteria

Antihyperglycaemic medication, venepuncture failure; persons with IFG

Notes

Baseline data for IGT group (N = 291)

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

Unclear risk

Scarce data

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

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

Low risk

Yes

Glycaemic status measurement: continuous variables reported or appropriate cut points used

Low risk

IGT: 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

FPG ≥ 7.0; 2‐h PG ≥ 11.1; physician diagnosed diabetes

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

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

Not reported

Statistical analysis & reporting: sufficient presentation of data to assess adequacy of the analytic strategy

Low risk

Cumulative incidence

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

ANCOVA using general linear models (comparisons between continuous variables)
Yeboah 2011

Name of study

Multi‐Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA)

Inclusion criteria

Persons without known CVD at baseline from 6 US communities aged 45–84 years

Exclusion criteria

Persons with a history of physician‐diagnosed myocardial infarction, angina, heart failure, stroke, or transient ischaemic attack, or who had undergone an invasive procedure for CVD (coronary artery bypass graft surgery, angioplasty, valve replacement, pacemaker placement, or other vascular surgeries)

Notes

Baseline data for IFG cohort (N = 940)

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

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

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 > 6.9; antihyperglycaemic medication during examinations 2,3,4

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

Low risk

Cumulative incidence, hazard ratio

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Cox proportional hazards model
Zethelius 2004

Name of study

None

Inclusion criteria

All men residing in Uppsala were invited to a health survey in 1970; reinvestigation 20 years later (= baseline) at 70 years of age

Exclusion criteria

Diabetes, antihyperglycaemic medications

Notes

Baseline data for cohort converting to T2DM (N = 26)

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

IGT: 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

Unclear risk

Yes

Outcome measurement: clear definition of the outcome provided

Low risk

FPG ≥ 7.0; antihyperglycaemic medications

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

Odds ratio

Statistical analysis & reporting: the statistical model is adequate for the design of the study

Low risk

Logistic regression, multivariate models (adjusted for BMI, age at baseline and length of follow‐up)

Note: for better readability all IFG/IGT and HbA1c measurements are reported in numerical format only (IFG and IGT were measured in mmol/L, HbA1c was measured in %)

ADA: American Diabetes Association; ANOVA: analysis of variance; BG: blood glucose; BMI: body mass index; CHD: coronary heart disease; CI: confidence interval; CVD: cardiovascular disease; FG: fasting glucose; FBG: fasting blood glucose; FINDRISC: Finnish Diabetes Risk Score; FPG: fasting plasma glucose; G6PD: glucose‐6‐P‐dehydrogenase test; HbA1c: glycosylated haemoglobin A1c; HbA1c5.7 : intermediate hyperglycaemia with HbA1c 5.7% as lower threshold (usually reflecting 5.7%–6.4%); HbA1c6.0 : intermediate hyperglycaemia with HbA1c 6.0% as lower threshold (usually reflecting 6.0%–6.4%); HOMA‐B: homeostatic model assessment beta‐cell function; HOMA‐IR: homeostatic model assessment for insulin resistance; HR: hazard ratio; IEC: International Expert Committee; IFG: impaired fasting glucose; IFG5.6 : impaired fasting glucose with 5.6 mmol/L as lower threshold; IFG6.1 : impaired fasting glucose with 6.1 mmol/L as lower threshold; IFG/IGT: both IFG and IGT; i‐IFG: isolated IFG; IGT: impaired glucose tolerance; i‐IGT: isolated IGT; JDS: Japanese Diabetes Society; MSet: metabolic set; NDDG: National Diabetes Data Group; NGSP: National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program; NGT: normal glucose tolerance; OGTT: oral glucose tolerance test; OR: odds ratio; PG: postload glucose; ROC: receiver operating characteristics; RR: risk ratio, relative risk; T2DM: type 2 diabetes mellitus; WHO: World Health Organization.

Characteristics of excluded studies [ordered by study ID]

Ir a:

Study

Reason for exclusion

Abdul‐Ghani 2011

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Alvarsson 2009

Intervention study

Alyass 2015

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Amoah 2002

Not a prospective cohort study

Andreou 2017

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes (prevalence data)

Bancks 2015

Only self‐reported diabetes, frequency matched population

Birmingham Diabetes Survey Working Party 1976

Non‐standard thresholds for intermediate hyperglycaemia

Bjornholt 2000

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Bodicoat 2017

Long‐term follow‐up of an interventional study

Boned 2016

Hypertensive cohort

Boucher 2015

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Brantsma 2005

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Brateanu 2017

Retrospective cohort study

Braun 1996

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Burchfiel 1995

No cohort with intermediate hyperglycaemia

Chamukuttan 2016

Intervention trial

Chang 2017

Investigation of the association between thyroid function and the development of intermediate hyperglycaemia/diabetes

Chen 1995

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Cheng 2011

Not a prospective cohort study

Cheung 2007

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Choi 2002

Not a prospective cohort study

Cicero 2005

No valid data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Cosson 2011

Not a prospective cohort study

Costa 2005

Study design paper

Cree‐Green 2013

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Cropano 2017

Investigation of the association between gene variants and development of intermediate hyperglycaemia/diabetes

Dagogo‐Jack 2011

Evaluation of the transition from normoglycaemia to intermediate hyperglycaemia

Daniel 1999

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Decode 2003

Aggregate data of 22 cohorts; no data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Deedwania 2013

No data on diabetes incidence

DeFina 2012

Not a prospective cohort study

DeJesus 2016

Not a prospective cohort study

Deschenes 2016

Cohort with depressive symptoms

Dinneen 1998

Not a prospective cohort study

Doi 2007

No cohort with intermediate hyperglycaemia

Du 2016

Cross‐sectional study, no cohort with intermediate hyperglycaemia

Edelman 2004

Non‐standard thresholds for intermediate hyperglycaemia

Edelstein 1997

Aggregated data on 6 prospective studies, no reliable additional data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Engberg 2010

Intervention trial

Eskesen 2013

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Feizi 2017

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Feskens 1989

No cohort with intermediate hyperglycaemia

Festa 2003

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Folsom 2000

No cohort with intermediate hyperglycaemia

Gil‐Montalban 2015

Diagnosis of type 2 diabetes incidence by database only

Giraldez‐Garcia 2015

No data on type 2 diabetes incidence

Glauber 2018

Incidence established by register data

Gonzalez‐Villalpando 2014

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Gopinath 2013

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Gu 2015

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes (database)

Gupta 2011

Intervention trial, hypertensive cohort

Hackett 2014

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Haffner 1997

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Haffner 2000

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Hajat 2012

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Hanai 2005

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes, OGTTs were unit of analysis

He 2018

Investigation of the association of glycaemic index diets and glycaemic load diets with development of type 2 diabetes

Helmrich 1991

No cohort with intermediate hyperglycaemia

Henninger 2015

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Holbrook 1990

No cohort with intermediate hyperglycaemia

Hong 2016

Not a prospective cohort study

Huang 2014c

Not a prospective cohort study (database)

Hulman 2017

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Inoue 2008

Retrospective cohort study

Invitti 2006

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Jallut 1990

Not a prospective cohort study

James 1998

No cohort with intermediate hyperglycaemia

Jansson 2015

No cohort with intermediate hyperglycaemia

Jarrett 1979

Intervention trial

Jarrett 1982

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Jeanne 2018

No cohort with intermediate hyperglycaemia, investigation of the association between birth weight and physical activity and cardiometabolic health

Jiamjarasrangsi 2008b

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Joshipura 2017

Diabetes incidence data for 'prediabetes' group only

Kadowaki 1984

Non‐standard thresholds for intermediate hyperglycaemia

Kametani 2002

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Kanauchi 2003

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Kanaya 2005

Investigation of a prediction model for development of diabetes

Kawahara 2015

Not a prospective cohort study

Khan 2017

Diabetes incidence defined by register data

Khang 2010

Not a prospective cohort study

Kieboom 2017

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Kim 2012a

Not a prospective cohort study

Kim 2012b

Not a prospective cohort study

Kim 2013

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Kim 2016b

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Kim 2017a

Investigation of the association between sleep duration and development of type 2 diabetes

Kim 2017b

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Ko 2000

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Kosaka 1996

Non‐standard thresholds, no numerical data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Kowall 2013

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Krabbe 2017

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Le Boudec 2016

Withdrawn publication

Lee 2014

No cohort with intermediate hyperglycaemia

Lee 2017

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Leite 2009

Intervention trial

Li 2011

Evaluation of a diabetes risk tool

Liatis 2014

Participants of a diabetes prevention programme

Libman 2008

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Liu 2017a

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Liu 2017b

Investigation of the association between the bone resorption marker CTX and incident intermediate hyperglycaemia/diabetes

Malmstrom 2018

Type 2 diabetes incidence measured mainly through registers; nested case‐control study; no transition data

Manson 1992

No cohort with intermediate hyperglycaemia

McNeill 2006

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

McPhillips 1990

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Medalie 1975

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes; no common thresholds for diagnosis of intermediate hyperglycaemia and type 2 diabetes

Metcalf 2017

No cohort with intermediate hyperglycaemia

Miranda 2017

Investigation of the association between advanced glycation end products (AGE) and their receptor (RAGE) and type 2 diabetes incidence

Mirbolouk 2016

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Monesi 2012

No cohort with intermediate hyperglycaemia

Morrison 2012

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Nakagami 2017

No cohort with intermediate hyperglycaemia

Nakasone 2017

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Nano 2017

Investigation of the association between liver transaminases and development of intermediate hyperglycaemia/type 2 diabetes

Nguyen 2014

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Nichols 2007

Not a prospective cohort study

Nichols 2010

Not a prospective cohort study

Nichols 2015

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Njolstad 1998

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Norberg 2006

Not a prospective cohort study

Nowicka 2011

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Ohlson 1987

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Oizumi 2011

Non‐standard thresholds for intermediate hyperglycaemia

Okada 2017

Diabetes incidence data for prediabetic cohort only (FPG 5.6–6.9 or HbA1c 5.7%–6.4%)

Onat 2007

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Onat 2013a

Non‐standard IFG/IGT definition

Onat 2013b

Non‐standard IFG/IGT definition

Osei 2004

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Paddock 2017

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Perry 1995

Type 2 diabetes mellitus incidence not established by glucose measurements (questionnaires, reviews of primary care records, reviews of death certificates)

Pinelli 2011

Cross‐sectional study

Polakowska 2011

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Pradhan 2007

Intervention trial (Women's Health Study)

Priya 2013

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Qiao 2003

Not a prospective cohort study

Qiu 2015

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Ramachandran 2012

Not a prospective cohort study

Rauh 2017

Development of a prediction model for HbA1c levels after 6 years in the non‐diabetic general population

Reynolds 2006

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Rimm 1995

No cohort with intermediate hyperglycaemia

Sacks 2017

Investigation of patient activation to predict the course of type 2 diabetes

Sai 2017

No cohort with intermediate hyperglycaemia

Samaras 2015

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Schmitz 2016

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Schottker 2011

Diabetes incidence by self‐report only

Schulze 2008

Evaluation of a diabetes risk score

Schwarz 2007

No individuals with intermediate hyperglycaemia at baseline

Serrano 2013

Study design paper

Shimazaki 2007

Not a prospective cohort study

Song 2007

Mix of old an new participants in 2 study phases, participants with with both IFG and IGT were combined into an IFG group

Song 2016b

Not a prospective cohort study

Sorgjerd 2015

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Soria 2009

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Stampfer 1988

No cohort with intermediate hyperglycaemia

Strauss 1974

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Suvitaival 2018

Evaluation of a new biomarker ('plasma lipidome') model

Tabak 2009

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Tai 2004

Aggregated data from several prevalence and incidence studies

Takkunen 2016

Cohort from intervention trial, no data on cohort with intermediate hyperglycaemia

Tanabe 2009

Not a prospective cohort study

Vaccaro 2005

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Vaidya 2016

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Vazquez 2000

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Vega‐Vázquez 2017

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Von Eckardstein 2000

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Wang 2010

New diabetes cases were identified through hospital records only

Warram 1996

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Wei 1999

Investigation of the association between cardiorespiratory fitness and intermediate hyperglycaemia/type 2 diabetes mellitus

Welborn 1979

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Wheeler 2017

Investigation of genetic determinants of HbA1c on the development of type 2 diabetes

Wingard 1993

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Woo 2015

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Wu 2017a

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Wu 2017b

Intermediate hyperglycaemia determined through register data, retrospective study

Wu 2018

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Xu 2014

Investigation of a prediction model for development of diabetes

Yang 2016

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Ye 2014

No data on people with intermediate hyperglycaemia

Yi 2017

No data on type 2 diabetes incidence

Yokota 2017

Retrospective cohort study

Yoshinaga 1996

Non‐standard thresholds for intermediate hyperglycaemia

Yoshinaga 1999

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Zargar 2001

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Zethelius 2008

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes, establishment of a predictive model

Zhang 2012b

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Zhang 2016

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

Zimmet 1992

No data on transition from intermediate hyperglycaemia to type 2 diabetes

FPG: fasting plasma glucose; HbA1c: glycosylated haemoglobin A1c; IFG: impaired fasting glucose; IGT: impaired glucose tolerance.

Characteristics of studies awaiting assessment [ordered by study ID]

Ir a:

Li 2001

Study name

Model development of diabetes in adult Chinese

Starting date

1986, follow‐up 6 years

Contact information

Guangwei Li, Department of Endocrinology, China‐Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing 100029 China

Notes

Establishment of a model for type 2 diabetes and the roles of insulin resistance and insulin secretion impairment; needs translation

Misnikova 2011

Study name

Risk of diabetes and cardiovascular events in persons with early glucose metabolism impairments

Starting date

2006, follow‐up 3 years

Contact information

Misnikova IV, Endocrinology, Moscow Regional Research Clinical Institute, Russian Federation

Notes

Conference abstract, no publication available
NCT00816608

Study name

The effect of maximum body weight in lifetime on the development of type 2 diabetes (MAXWEL)

Starting date

August 2006

Contact information

Professor Soo Lim, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital

Notes

Study completion date: September 2013; no publication available

Characteristics of ongoing studies [ordered by study ID]

Ir a:

NCT00786890

Trial name or title

A survey to evaluate the cardiovascular risk status of subjects with pre‐diabetes in Hong Kong (JADE‐HK2)

Starting date

November 2008

Contact information

Juliana Chan, Professor, Chinese University of Hong Kong

Notes

Estimated study completion date: December 2018
NCT02838693

Trial name or title

Assessing progression to type‐2 diabetes (APT‐2D): a prospective cohort study expanded from BRITE‐SPOT (Bio‐bank and Registry for StratIfication and Targeted intErventions in the Spectrum Of Type 2 Diabetes) (APT‐2D)

Starting date

March 2016

Contact information

Sue‐Anne Toh, MBBChir, MSc, MA; +65 67722195; [email protected]

Notes

Estimated study completion date: December 2021
NCT02958579

Trial name or title

A population based study on metabolic syndrome complications, and mortality (MetSCoM)

Starting date

January 2005

Contact information

Alireza Esteghamati, MD ([email protected]); Zahra Aryan, MD, MPH ([email protected])

Notes

Estimated study completion date: January 2020
Vilanova 2017

Trial name or title

Prevalence, clinical features and risk assessment of pre‐diabetes in Spain: the prospective Mollerussa cohort study

Starting date

August 2011

Contact information

Dr Didac Mauricio, MD; [email protected]

Notes

The Mollerussa study completed its recruitment phase in July 2014 and the 12 month follow‐up in July 2015. Participants will be followed up long‐term through annual extraction of data included in the individual's electronic medical records.

Data and analyses

Open in table viewer
Comparison 1. Hazard ratio as the effect measure for the development of T2DM

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 T2DM incidence (IFG5.6) Show forest plot

8

34867

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

4.32 [2.61, 7.12]
Analysis 1.1
Comparison 1 Hazard ratio as the effect measure for the development of T2DM, Outcome 1 T2DM incidence (IFG5.6).

Comparison 1 Hazard ratio as the effect measure for the development of T2DM, Outcome 1 T2DM incidence (IFG5.6).

1.1 Asia/Middle East

4

14803

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

5.07 [3.41, 7.53]

1.2 Australia/Europe/North America

3

18522

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

4.15 [1.24, 13.87]

1.3 American Indians/Islands

1

1542

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

2.38 [1.85, 3.06]

2 T2DM incidence (IFG6.1) Show forest plot

10

21475

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

5.47 [3.50, 8.54]
Analysis 1.2
Comparison 1 Hazard ratio as the effect measure for the development of T2DM, Outcome 2 T2DM incidence (IFG6.1).

Comparison 1 Hazard ratio as the effect measure for the development of T2DM, Outcome 2 T2DM incidence (IFG6.1).

2.1 Asia/Middle East

5

10810

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

10.55 [3.61, 30.81]

2.2 Australia/Europe/North America

4

10571

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

3.30 [2.32, 4.67]

2.3 Latin America

1

94

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

2.06 [1.76, 2.41]

3 T2DM incidence (IGT) Show forest plot

5

16576

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

3.61 [2.31, 5.64]
Analysis 1.3
Comparison 1 Hazard ratio as the effect measure for the development of T2DM, Outcome 3 T2DM incidence (IGT).

Comparison 1 Hazard ratio as the effect measure for the development of T2DM, Outcome 3 T2DM incidence (IGT).

3.1 Asia/Middle East

3

8475

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

4.48 [2.81, 7.15]

3.2 Australia/Europe/North America

2

8101

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

2.53 [1.52, 4.19]

4 T2DM incidence (IFG + IGT) Show forest plot

5

9757

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

6.90 [4.15, 11.45]
Analysis 1.4
Comparison 1 Hazard ratio as the effect measure for the development of T2DM, Outcome 4 T2DM incidence (IFG + IGT).

Comparison 1 Hazard ratio as the effect measure for the development of T2DM, Outcome 4 T2DM incidence (IFG + IGT).

4.1 Asia/Middle East

3

7156

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

10.20 [5.45, 19.09]

4.2 Australia/Europe/North America

1

1650

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

3.80 [2.30, 6.28]

4.3 American Indians/Islands

1

951

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

4.06 [3.05, 5.40]

5 T2DM incidence (HbA1c5.7) Show forest plot

4

25047

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

5.55 [2.77, 11.12]
Analysis 1.5
Comparison 1 Hazard ratio as the effect measure for the development of T2DM, Outcome 5 T2DM incidence (HbA1c5.7).

Comparison 1 Hazard ratio as the effect measure for the development of T2DM, Outcome 5 T2DM incidence (HbA1c5.7).

5.1 Asia

3

16805

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

7.21 [5.14, 10.11]

5.2 Australia/Europe/North America

1

8242

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

2.71 [2.48, 2.96]

6 T2DM incidence (HbA1c6.0) Show forest plot

6

30699

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

10.10 [3.59, 28.43]
Analysis 1.6
Comparison 1 Hazard ratio as the effect measure for the development of T2DM, Outcome 6 T2DM incidence (HbA1c6.0).

Comparison 1 Hazard ratio as the effect measure for the development of T2DM, Outcome 6 T2DM incidence (HbA1c6.0).

6.1 Asia/Middle East

4

22734

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

13.12 [4.10, 41.96]

6.2 Australia/Europe/North America

2

7965

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

5.09 [1.69, 15.37]

7 T2DM incidence (HbA1c + IFG) Show forest plot

1

Hazard Ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 1.7
Comparison 1 Hazard ratio as the effect measure for the development of T2DM, Outcome 7 T2DM incidence (HbA1c + IFG).

Comparison 1 Hazard ratio as the effect measure for the development of T2DM, Outcome 7 T2DM incidence (HbA1c + IFG).

7.1 HbA1c5.7 + IFG5.6

1

4559

Hazard Ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

32.50 [23.00, 45.92]

7.2 HbA1c5.7 + IFG6.1

1

5357

Hazard Ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

37.90 [28.10, 51.12]

7.3 HbA1c6.0 + IFG5.6

1

4628

Hazard Ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

53.70 [38.40, 75.09]

7.4 HbA1c6.0 + IFG6.1

1

5802

Hazard Ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

52.30 [37.80, 72.37]
Open in table viewer
Comparison 2. Odds ratio as the effect measure for the development of T2DM

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 T2DM incidence (IFG5.6) Show forest plot

21

47647

Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

4.15 [2.75, 6.28]
Analysis 2.1
Comparison 2 Odds ratio as the effect measure for the development of T2DM, Outcome 1 T2DM incidence (IFG5.6).

Comparison 2 Odds ratio as the effect measure for the development of T2DM, Outcome 1 T2DM incidence (IFG5.6).

1.1 Asia/Middle East

10

34577

Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

2.94 [1.77, 4.86]

1.2 Australia/Europe/North America

9

9869

Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

6.47 [3.81, 11.00]

1.3 Latin America

1

1659

Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

4.28 [3.21, 5.71]

1.4 American Indians/Islands

1

1542

Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

3.12 [2.31, 4.21]

2 T2DM incidence (IFG6.1) Show forest plot

15

36866

Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

6.60 [4.18, 10.43]
Analysis 2.2
Comparison 2 Odds ratio as the effect measure for the development of T2DM, Outcome 2 T2DM incidence (IFG6.1).

Comparison 2 Odds ratio as the effect measure for the development of T2DM, Outcome 2 T2DM incidence (IFG6.1).

2.1 Asia/Middle East

7

28921

Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

5.18 [2.32, 11.53]

2.2 Australia/Europe/North America

7

6334

Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

8.69 [4.95, 15.24]

2.3 Latin America

1

1611

Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

3.73 [2.18, 6.38]

3 T2DM incidence (IGT) Show forest plot

20

21552

Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

4.61 [3.76, 5.64]
Analysis 2.3
Comparison 2 Odds ratio as the effect measure for the development of T2DM, Outcome 3 T2DM incidence (IGT).

Comparison 2 Odds ratio as the effect measure for the development of T2DM, Outcome 3 T2DM incidence (IGT).

3.1 Asia/Middle East

6

8643

Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

3.74 [2.83, 4.94]

3.2 Australia/Europe/North America

11

9165

Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

5.20 [3.62, 7.45]

3.3 Latin America

2

3478

Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

4.94 [3.15, 7.76]

3.4 American Indians/Islands

1

266

Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

3.60 [1.40, 9.26]

4 T2DM incidence (IFG + IGT) Show forest plot

9

9656

Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

13.14 [7.41, 23.30]
Analysis 2.4
Comparison 2 Odds ratio as the effect measure for the development of T2DM, Outcome 4 T2DM incidence (IFG + IGT).

Comparison 2 Odds ratio as the effect measure for the development of T2DM, Outcome 4 T2DM incidence (IFG + IGT).

4.1 Asia/Middle East

3

4202

Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

6.99 [3.09, 15.83]

4.2 Australia/Europe/North America

6

5454

Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

20.95 [12.40, 35.40]

5 T2DM incidence (HbA1c5.7) Show forest plot

3

3468

Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

4.43 [2.20, 8.88]
Analysis 2.5
Comparison 2 Odds ratio as the effect measure for the development of T2DM, Outcome 5 T2DM incidence (HbA1c5.7).

Comparison 2 Odds ratio as the effect measure for the development of T2DM, Outcome 5 T2DM incidence (HbA1c5.7).

5.1 Asia/Middle East

1

1137

Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

4.54 [2.65, 7.78]

5.2 Europe/North America

2

2331

Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

4.38 [1.36, 14.15]

6 T2DM incidence (HbA1c6.0) Show forest plot

3

18317

Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

12.79 [4.56, 35.85]
Analysis 2.6
Comparison 2 Odds ratio as the effect measure for the development of T2DM, Outcome 6 T2DM incidence (HbA1c6.0).

Comparison 2 Odds ratio as the effect measure for the development of T2DM, Outcome 6 T2DM incidence (HbA1c6.0).

6.1 Asia/Middle East

1

11866

Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

23.20 [18.70, 28.78]

6.2 Australia/Europe/North America

1

5735

Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

15.60 [6.90, 35.27]

6.3 American Indians/Islands

1

716

Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

5.89 [4.23, 8.20]

7 T2DM incidence (HbA1c5.7 + IFG5.6) Show forest plot

2

14006

Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

35.91 [20.43, 63.12]
Analysis 2.7
Comparison 2 Odds ratio as the effect measure for the development of T2DM, Outcome 7 T2DM incidence (HbA1c5.7 + IFG5.6).

Comparison 2 Odds ratio as the effect measure for the development of T2DM, Outcome 7 T2DM incidence (HbA1c5.7 + IFG5.6).

7.1 Australia/Europe/North America

1

1294

Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

26.20 [16.30, 42.11]

7.2 Asia/Middle East

1

12712

Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

46.70 [33.60, 64.91]

Study flow diagram
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Study flow diagram

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Risk of bias graph for studies of overall prognosis of people with intermediate hyperglycaemia for developing type 2 diabetes: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

Risk of bias graph for studies of overall prognosis of people with intermediate hyperglycaemia for developing type 2 diabetes: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

'Risk of bias' summary for studies of overall prognosis in people with intermediate hyperglycaemia for developing type 2 diabetes: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study (part 1). The summary was split into part 1 () and part 2 () for better legibility
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 3

'Risk of bias' summary for studies of overall prognosis in people with intermediate hyperglycaemia for developing type 2 diabetes: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study (part 1). The summary was split into part 1 (Figure 3) and part 2 (Figure 4) for better legibility

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Risk of bias summary for studies of overall prognosis of people with intermediate hyperglycaemia for developing type 2 diabetes: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study (part 2)
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 4

Risk of bias summary for studies of overall prognosis of people with intermediate hyperglycaemia for developing type 2 diabetes: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study (part 2)

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Risk of bias graph for studies of intermediate hyperglycaemia versus normoglycaemia as a prognostic factor for developing type 2 diabetes: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 5

Risk of bias graph for studies of intermediate hyperglycaemia versus normoglycaemia as a prognostic factor for developing type 2 diabetes: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Risk of bias summary for studies of intermediate hyperglycaemia versus normoglycaemia as a prognostic factor for developing type 2 diabetes: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 6

Risk of bias summary for studies of intermediate hyperglycaemia versus normoglycaemia as a prognostic factor for developing type 2 diabetes: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Impaired fasting glucose 5.6 mmol/L (IFG5.6) threshold: association with cumulative type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) incidence over 2–5 years
 *Isolated IFG5.6
 CI: confidence interval; M: men; n/N: events/number of participants; W: women
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 7

Impaired fasting glucose 5.6 mmol/L (IFG5.6) threshold: association with cumulative type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) incidence over 2–5 years
*Isolated IFG5.6
CI: confidence interval; M: men; n/N: events/number of participants; W: women

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Impaired fasting glucose 5.6 mmol/L (IFG5.6) threshold: association with cumulative type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) incidence over 6–12 years
 *Isolated IFG5.6 
 **'Africa': African Surinamese cohort, 'Asia': Asian Surinamese cohort, 'Australia/Europe/North America': 'ethnic Dutch' cohort.
 CI: confidence interval; M: men; n/N: events/number of participants; W: women
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 8

Impaired fasting glucose 5.6 mmol/L (IFG5.6) threshold: association with cumulative type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) incidence over 6–12 years
*Isolated IFG5.6
**'Africa': African Surinamese cohort, 'Asia': Asian Surinamese cohort, 'Australia/Europe/North America': 'ethnic Dutch' cohort.
CI: confidence interval; M: men; n/N: events/number of participants; W: women

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Impaired fasting glucose 6.1 mmol/L (IFG6.1) threshold: association with cumulative type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) incidence over 2–5 years
 *Isolated IFG6.1
 CI: confidence interval; M: men; n/N: events/number of participants; W: women
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 9

Impaired fasting glucose 6.1 mmol/L (IFG6.1) threshold: association with cumulative type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) incidence over 2–5 years
*Isolated IFG6.1
CI: confidence interval; M: men; n/N: events/number of participants; W: women

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Impaired fasting glucose 6.1 mmol/L (IFG6.1) threshold: association with cumulative type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) incidence over 6–15 years
 *Isolated IFG6.1
 CI: confidence interval; n/N: events/number of participants
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 10

Impaired fasting glucose 6.1 mmol/L (IFG6.1) threshold: association with cumulative type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) incidence over 6–15 years
*Isolated IFG6.1
CI: confidence interval; n/N: events/number of participants

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Impaired glucose tolerance (IGT): association with cumulative type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) incidence over 1–5 years
 *Isolated IGT
 CI: confidence interval; n/N: events/number of participants
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 11

Impaired glucose tolerance (IGT): association with cumulative type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) incidence over 1–5 years
*Isolated IGT
CI: confidence interval; n/N: events/number of participants

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Impaired glucose tolerance (IGT): association with cumulative type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) incidence over 6–20 years*Isolated IGT
 CI: confidence interval; M: men; n/N: events/number of participants; W: women
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 12

Impaired glucose tolerance (IGT): association with cumulative type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) incidence over 6–20 years

*Isolated IGT
CI: confidence interval; M: men; n/N: events/number of participants; W: women

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Combined impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) and impaired fasting glucose (IFG): association with cumulative type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) incidence over 1–12 years
 CI: confidence interval; M: men; n/N: events/number of participants; W: women
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 13

Combined impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) and impaired fasting glucose (IFG): association with cumulative type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) incidence over 1–12 years
CI: confidence interval; M: men; n/N: events/number of participants; W: women

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Elevated glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) 5.7% threshold: association with cumulative type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) incidence over 4–10 years
 CI: confidence interval; n/N: events/number of participants
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 14

Elevated glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) 5.7% threshold: association with cumulative type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) incidence over 4–10 years
CI: confidence interval; n/N: events/number of participants

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Elevated glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) 6.0% threshold: association with cumulative type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) incidence over 3–15 years
 CI: confidence interval; n/N: events/number of participants
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 15

Elevated glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) 6.0% threshold: association with cumulative type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) incidence over 3–15 years
CI: confidence interval; n/N: events/number of participants

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Cumulative type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) incidence in children/adolescents over 1–10 years
 CI: confidence interval; HbA1c 5.7: glycosylated haemoglobin A1c 5.7% threshold; (i‐)IGT: (isolated) impaired glucose tolerance; n/N: events/number of participants; NO: non‐overweight; OV: overweight
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 16

Cumulative type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) incidence in children/adolescents over 1–10 years
CI: confidence interval; HbA1c 5.7: glycosylated haemoglobin A1c 5.7% threshold; (i‐)IGT: (isolated) impaired glucose tolerance; n/N: events/number of participants; NO: non‐overweight; OV: overweight

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Regression from intermediate hyperglycaemia to normoglycaemia in adults over 1–5 years
 CI: confidence interval; HbA1c5.7 : glycosylated haemoglobin A1c 5.7%; i‐IFG5.6/6.1 : (isolated) impaired fasting glucose 5.6/6.1 mmol/L threshold;IGT: impaired glucose tolerance; n/N: events/number of participants
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 17

Regression from intermediate hyperglycaemia to normoglycaemia in adults over 1–5 years
CI: confidence interval; HbA1c5.7 : glycosylated haemoglobin A1c 5.7%; i‐IFG5.6/6.1 : (isolated) impaired fasting glucose 5.6/6.1 mmol/L threshold;IGT: impaired glucose tolerance; n/N: events/number of participants

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Regression from intermediate hyperglycaemia to normoglycaemia in adults over 6–11 years
 CI: confidence interval; i‐IFG5.6/6.1 : (isolated) impaired fasting glucose 5.6/6.1 mmol/L threshold; i‐IGT: (isolated) impaired glucose tolerance; n/N: events/number of participants
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 18

Regression from intermediate hyperglycaemia to normoglycaemia in adults over 6–11 years
CI: confidence interval; i‐IFG5.6/6.1 : (isolated) impaired fasting glucose 5.6/6.1 mmol/L threshold; i‐IGT: (isolated) impaired glucose tolerance; n/N: events/number of participants

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Regression from intermediate hyperglycaemia to normoglycaemia in children/adolescents over 1–4 years
 CI: confidence interval; IGT: impaired glucose tolerance; n/N: events/number of participants
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 19

Regression from intermediate hyperglycaemia to normoglycaemia in children/adolescents over 1–4 years
CI: confidence interval; IGT: impaired glucose tolerance; n/N: events/number of participants

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

IFG: impaired fasting glucose; IRR: incidence rate ratio; n: number of cases; T: person‐time in years
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 20

IFG: impaired fasting glucose; IRR: incidence rate ratio; n: number of cases; T: person‐time in years

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

IFG: impaired fasting glucose; IRR: incidence rate ratio; n: number of cases; T: person‐time in years
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 21

IFG: impaired fasting glucose; IRR: incidence rate ratio; n: number of cases; T: person‐time in years

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

IGT: impaired glucose tolerance; IRR: incidence rate ratio; n: number of cases; T: person‐time in years
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 22

IGT: impaired glucose tolerance; IRR: incidence rate ratio; n: number of cases; T: person‐time in years

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

IFG: impaired fasting glucose; IGT: impaired glucose tolerance; IRR: incidence rate ratio; n: number of cases; T: person‐time in years
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 23

IFG: impaired fasting glucose; IGT: impaired glucose tolerance; IRR: incidence rate ratio; n: number of cases; T: person‐time in years

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

IFG: impaired fasting glucose; HbA1c: glycosylated haemoglobin A1c; IRR: incidence rate ratio; n: number of cases; T: person‐time in years
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 24

IFG: impaired fasting glucose; HbA1c: glycosylated haemoglobin A1c; IRR: incidence rate ratio; n: number of cases; T: person‐time in years

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Overall prognosis of people with intermediate hyperglycaemia (cumulative type 2 diabetes incidence and regression to normoglycaemia) associated with measures of intermediate hyperglycaemia
 HbA1c5.7/HbA1c6.0: glycosylated haemoglobin A1c 5.7%/6.0% threshold; IFG5.6/6.1: impaired fasting glucose 5.6/6.1 mmol/L threshold; IGT: impaired glucose tolerance
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 25

Overall prognosis of people with intermediate hyperglycaemia (cumulative type 2 diabetes incidence and regression to normoglycaemia) associated with measures of intermediate hyperglycaemia
HbA1c5.7/HbA1c6.0: glycosylated haemoglobin A1c 5.7%/6.0% threshold; IFG5.6/6.1: impaired fasting glucose 5.6/6.1 mmol/L threshold; IGT: impaired glucose tolerance

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Intermediate hyperglycaemia versus normoglycaemia as a prognostic factor for developing type 2 diabetes (associated with different measures and relative risks of intermediate hyperglycaemia)
 HbA1c5.7/HbA1c6.0: glycosylated haemoglobin A1c 5.7%/6.0% threshold; IFG5.6/6.1: impaired fasting glucose 5.6/6.1 mmol/L threshold; IGT: impaired glucose tolerance; IRR: incidence rate ratio; OR: odds ratio; HR: hazard ratio
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 26

Intermediate hyperglycaemia versus normoglycaemia as a prognostic factor for developing type 2 diabetes (associated with different measures and relative risks of intermediate hyperglycaemia)
HbA1c5.7/HbA1c6.0: glycosylated haemoglobin A1c 5.7%/6.0% threshold; IFG5.6/6.1: impaired fasting glucose 5.6/6.1 mmol/L threshold; IGT: impaired glucose tolerance; IRR: incidence rate ratio; OR: odds ratio; HR: hazard ratio

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Hazard ratio as the effect measure for the development of T2DM, Outcome 1 T2DM incidence (IFG5.6).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Hazard ratio as the effect measure for the development of T2DM, Outcome 1 T2DM incidence (IFG5.6).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Hazard ratio as the effect measure for the development of T2DM, Outcome 2 T2DM incidence (IFG6.1).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Hazard ratio as the effect measure for the development of T2DM, Outcome 2 T2DM incidence (IFG6.1).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Hazard ratio as the effect measure for the development of T2DM, Outcome 3 T2DM incidence (IGT).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Hazard ratio as the effect measure for the development of T2DM, Outcome 3 T2DM incidence (IGT).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Hazard ratio as the effect measure for the development of T2DM, Outcome 4 T2DM incidence (IFG + IGT).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Hazard ratio as the effect measure for the development of T2DM, Outcome 4 T2DM incidence (IFG + IGT).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Hazard ratio as the effect measure for the development of T2DM, Outcome 5 T2DM incidence (HbA1c5.7).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Hazard ratio as the effect measure for the development of T2DM, Outcome 5 T2DM incidence (HbA1c5.7).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Hazard ratio as the effect measure for the development of T2DM, Outcome 6 T2DM incidence (HbA1c6.0).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 Hazard ratio as the effect measure for the development of T2DM, Outcome 6 T2DM incidence (HbA1c6.0).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Hazard ratio as the effect measure for the development of T2DM, Outcome 7 T2DM incidence (HbA1c + IFG).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1 Hazard ratio as the effect measure for the development of T2DM, Outcome 7 T2DM incidence (HbA1c + IFG).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 Odds ratio as the effect measure for the development of T2DM, Outcome 1 T2DM incidence (IFG5.6).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Odds ratio as the effect measure for the development of T2DM, Outcome 1 T2DM incidence (IFG5.6).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 Odds ratio as the effect measure for the development of T2DM, Outcome 2 T2DM incidence (IFG6.1).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Odds ratio as the effect measure for the development of T2DM, Outcome 2 T2DM incidence (IFG6.1).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 Odds ratio as the effect measure for the development of T2DM, Outcome 3 T2DM incidence (IGT).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 Odds ratio as the effect measure for the development of T2DM, Outcome 3 T2DM incidence (IGT).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 Odds ratio as the effect measure for the development of T2DM, Outcome 4 T2DM incidence (IFG + IGT).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2 Odds ratio as the effect measure for the development of T2DM, Outcome 4 T2DM incidence (IFG + IGT).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 Odds ratio as the effect measure for the development of T2DM, Outcome 5 T2DM incidence (HbA1c5.7).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.5

Comparison 2 Odds ratio as the effect measure for the development of T2DM, Outcome 5 T2DM incidence (HbA1c5.7).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 Odds ratio as the effect measure for the development of T2DM, Outcome 6 T2DM incidence (HbA1c6.0).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.6

Comparison 2 Odds ratio as the effect measure for the development of T2DM, Outcome 6 T2DM incidence (HbA1c6.0).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 Odds ratio as the effect measure for the development of T2DM, Outcome 7 T2DM incidence (HbA1c5.7 + IFG5.6).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.7

Comparison 2 Odds ratio as the effect measure for the development of T2DM, Outcome 7 T2DM incidence (HbA1c5.7 + IFG5.6).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Summary of findings: overall prognosis of people with intermediate hyperglycaemia for developing T2DM

Outcome: development of T2DM
Prognosis of people with intermediate hyperglycaemia

Follow‐up
(years)

Cumulative T2DM incidence % (95% CI)
[no of studies; no of participants with intermediate hyperglycaemia]

Regression from intermediate hyperglycaemia to normoglycaemia % (95% CI)
[no of studies; no of participants with intermediate hyperglycaemia]

Overall certainty of the evidence (GRADE)a

IFG5.6

IFG6.1

IGT

IFG + IGT

HbA1c5.7

HbA1c6.0

1

—

—

13 (5–23)

[3; 671]

29 (23–36)

[1; 207]

—

—

59 (54–64)

[2; 375]

⊕⊕⊕⊝
Moderateb

2

2 (1–2)

[1; 1335]

11 (8–14)

[2; 549]

16 (9–26)

[9; 1998]

—

—

—

46 (36–55)

[9; 2852]

3

17 (6–32)

[3; 1091]

9 (2–20)

[3; 927]

22 (18–27)

[3; 417]

34 (28–41)

[1; 209]—

—

7 (5–10)

[1; 370]

41 (24–69)

[7; 1356]

4

17 (13–22)

[3; 800]

30 (17–44)

[2; 1567]

22 (12–34)

[5; 1042]

—

14 (7–23)

[3; 5352]

44 (40–48)

[2; 627]

33 (26–40)

[3; 807]

5

18 (10–27)

[7; 3530]

26 (19–33)

[11; 3837]

39 (25–53)

[12; 3444]

50 (37–63)

[5; 478]

25 (18–32)

[4; 3524]

38 (26–51)

[3; 1462]

34 (27–42)

[9; 2603]

6

22 (15–31)

[4; 738]

37 (31–43)

[5; 279]

29 (25–34)

[7; 775]

58 (48–67)

[4; 106]

17 (14–20)

[1; 675]

—

23 (3–53)

[5; 1328]

7

18 (8–30)

[5; 980]

15 (0–45)

[4; 434]

19 (13–26)

[5; 835]

32 (20–45)

[4; 753]

21 (16–27)

[1; 207]

—

41 (37–45)

[4; 679]

8

34 (27–40)

[2; 1887]

48 (31–66)

[1;29]

43 (37–49)

[4; 1021]

52 (47–57)

[1; 356]

—

—

39 (33–44)

[2; 328]

9

38 (10–70)

[3; 1356]

—

53 (45–60)

[1; 163]

84 (74–91)

[1; 69]

—

—

17 (14–22)

[1; 299]

10

23 (14–33)

[6; 1542]

29 (17–43)

[6; 537]

26 (17–37)

[6; 443]

30 (17–44)

[2; 49]

31 (29–33)

[2; 2854]

—

42 (22–63)

[7; 894]

11

—

38 (33–43)

[1; 402]

46 (43–49)

[1; 1253]

—

—

—

28 (17–39)

[2; 736]

12

31 (19–34)

[3; 433]

31 (28–33)

[1; 1382]

41 (38–43)

[2; 1552]

70 (63–76)

[2; 207]

—

—

—

15

—

—

—

—

—

29 (19–40)

[1; 70]

—

20

—

—

60 (5–68)

[1; 114]

—

—

—

—

CI: confidence interval; HbA1c5.7 : glycosylated haemoglobin A1c, 5.7% threshold; HbA1c6.0 : glycosylated haemoglobin A1c, 6.0% threshold; IFG5.6 : impaired fasting glucose, 5.6 mmol/L threshold; IFG6.1 : impaired fasting glucose, 6.1 mmol/L threshold; IGT: impaired glucose tolerance; T2DM: type 2 diabetes mellitus.

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: we are very uncertain about the estimate.

aWith phase 2 explanatory studies aiming to confirm independent associations between the prognostic factor and the outcome, GRADE starts with 'high quality' (Huguet 2013). We assumed the GRADE factor publication bias was inherent with this type of research (phase 2 design), so we did not use it as a potential downgrading factor
bDowngraded by one level because of imprecision (wide CIs for most intermediate hyperglycaemia definitions and the association with T2DM incidence and regression from intermediate hyperglycaemia)

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Summary of findings: overall prognosis of people with intermediate hyperglycaemia for developing T2DM
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Summary of findings 2. Summary of findings: risk of intermediate hyperglycaemia (IFG5.6 mmol/L definition) versus normoglycaemia for developing T2DM

Outcome: development of T2DM
Prognostic factor: intermediate hyperglycaemia versus normoglycaemia as measured by IFG5.6

No of studies

No of participants with intermediate hyperglycaemia

Geographic region/special population

Estimated effect (95% CI)
[95% prediction interval]

Overall certainty of the evidence (GRADE)a

HR: 4

IRR: 6

OR: 10

HR: 2385

IRR: 15,661

OR: 6359

Asia/Middle East

HR: 5.07 (3.41–4.86) [1.07–24.02]

IRR: 5.23 (3.77–7.25) [1.72–15.89]

OR: 2.94 (1.77–4.86) [0.43–19.93]

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Lowb

HR: 3

IRR: 3

OR: 9

HR: 5685

IRR: 6322

OR: 1949

Australia/Europe/North America

HR: 4.15 (1.24–13.9) [N/M]

IRR: 4.96 (3.25–7.57) [0.32–77.24]

OR: 6.47 (3.81–11.00) [0.99–42.32]

HR: 0

IRR: 0

OR: 1

HR: 0

IRR: 0

OR: 65

Latin America

HR: NA

IRR: NA

OR: 4.28 (3.21–5.71)

HR: 1

IRR: 1

OR: 1

HR: 947

IRR: 2374

OR: 947

American Indians/Islands

HR: 2.38 (1.85–3.06)

IRR: 2.74 (1.88–3.99)

OR: 3.12 (2.31–4.21)

HR: 8

IRR: 10

OR: 21

HR: 9017

IRR: 24,357

OR: 9320

Overall

HR: 4.32 (2.61–7.12) [0.75–25.0]

IRR: 4.81 (3.67–6.30) [1.95–11.83]

OR: 4.15 (2.75–6.28) [0.53–32.4]

CI: confidence interval; HR: hazard ratio;IFG5.6 : impaired fasting glucose 5.6 mmol/L threshold; IRR: incidence rate ratio; NA: not applicable; N/M: fewer than 3 studies or calculation of the 95% prediction interval did not provide a meaningful estimate; OR: odds ratio; T2DM: type 2 diabetes mellitus.

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: we are very uncertain about the estimate.

aWith phase 2 explanatory studies aiming to confirm independent associations between the prognostic factor and the outcome, GRADE starts with 'high quality' (Huguet 2013). We assumed the GRADE factor publication bias was inherent with this type of research (phase 2 design), so we did not use it as a potential downgrading factor
bDowngraded by one level because of study limitations (many studies did not adequately adjust for confounders, if at all) and by one level because of imprecision (CIs were wide) and inconsistency (wide 95% prediction intervals sometimes ranging from negative to positive prognostic factor to outcome associations)

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings 2. Summary of findings: risk of intermediate hyperglycaemia (IFG5.6 mmol/L definition) versus normoglycaemia for developing T2DM
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Summary of findings 3. Summary of findings: risk of intermediate hyperglycaemia (IFG6.1 mmol/L definition) versus normoglycaemia for developing T2DM

Outcome: development of T2DM
Prognostic factor: intermediate hyperglycaemia as measured by IFG6.1

No of studies

No of participants with intermediate hyperglycaemia

Geographic region/special population

Estimated effect (95% CI)
[95% prediction interval]

Overall certainty of
the evidence (GRADE)a

HR: 5

IRR: 2

OR: 7

HR: 1054

IRR: 1677

OR: 3317

Asia/Middle East

HR: 10.55 (3.61–30.81) [N/M]

IRR: 3.62 (1.67–7.83) [N/M]

OR: 5.18 (2.32–11.53) [0.29–91.37]

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Lowb

HR: 4

IRR: 4

OR: 7

HR: 1736

IRR: 3438

OR: 1240

Australia/Europe/North America

HR: 3.30 (2.32–4.67) [0.84–12.99]

IRR: 8.55 (6.37–11.48) [4.37–16.73]

OR: 8.69 (4.95–15.24) [1.20–62.69]

HR: 0

IRR: 0

OR: 1

HR: 0

IRR: 0

OR: 17

Latin America

HR: NA

IRR: NA

OR: 3.73 (2.18–6.38)

HR: 0

IRR: 0

OR: 0

HR: 0

IRR: 0

OR: 0

American Indians/Islands

HR: NA

IRR: NA

OR: NA

HR: 9

IRR: 6

OR: 15

HR: 2818

IRR: 5115

OR: 4574

Overall

HR: 5.47 (3.50–8.54) [1.09–27.56]

IRR: 6.82 (4.53–10.25) [2.03–22.87]

OR: 6.60 (4.18–10.43) [0.93–46.82]

CI: confidence interval; HR: hazard ratio;IFG6.1 : impaired fasting glucose 6.1 mmol/L threshold; IRR: incidence rate ratio; NA: not applicable; N/M: fewer than 3 studies or calculation of the 95% prediction interval did not provide a meaningful estimate; OR: odds ratio; T2DM: type 2 diabetes mellitus.

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: we are very uncertain about the estimate.

aWith phase 2 explanatory studies aiming to confirm independent associations between the prognostic factor and the outcome, GRADE starts with 'high quality' (Huguet 2013). We assumed the GRADE factor publication bias was inherent with this type of research (phase 2 design), so we did not use it as a potential downgrading factor
bDowngraded by one level because of study limitations (many studies did not adequately adjust for confounders, if at all) and by one level because of imprecision (CIs were wide) and inconsistency (wide 95% prediction intervals sometimes ranging from negative to positive prognostic factor to outcome associations)

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings 3. Summary of findings: risk of intermediate hyperglycaemia (IFG6.1 mmol/L definition) versus normoglycaemia for developing T2DM
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Summary of findings 4. Summary of findings: risk of intermediate hyperglycaemia (IGT definition) versus normoglycaemia for developing T2DM

Outcome: development of T2DM
Prognostic factor: intermediate hyperglycaemia as measured by IGT

No of studies

No of participants with intermediate hyperglycaemia

Geographic region/special population

Estimated effect (95% CI)
[95% prediction interval]

Overall certainty of the evidence (GRADE)a

HR: 3

IRR: 5

OR: 6

HR: 1780

IRR: 14,809

OR: 1226

Asia/Middle East

HR: 4.48 (2.81–7.15) [N/M]

IRR: 3.93 (3.03–5.10) [1.71–9.02]

OR: 3.74 (2.83–4.94) [1.70–8.21]

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Lowb

HR: 2

IRR: 5

OR: 11

HR: 2230

IRR: 2572

OR: 1481

Australia/Europe/North America

HR: 2.53 (1.52–4.19) [N/M]

IRR: 5.93 (4.11–8.57) [2.38–14.81]

OR: 5.20 (3.62–7.45) [1.50–18.09]

HR: 0

IRR: 0

OR: 2

HR: 0

IRR: 0

OR: 381

Latin America

HR: NA

IRR: NA

OR: 4.94 (3.15–7.76) [N/M]

IRR: 2
OR: 1
HR: 0

IRR: 1087
OR: 51
HR: 0

American Indians/Islands

IRR: 4.46 (3.12–6.38) [N/M]

OR: 3.60 (1.40–9.26)

HR: NA

HR: 5

IRR: 12

OR: 20

HR: 4010

IRR: 18,468

OR: 3139

Overall

HR: 3.61 (2.31–5.64) [0.69–18.97]

IRR: 4.48 (3.59–5.44) [2.60–7.70]

OR: 4.61 (3.76–5.64) [2.10–10.13]

CI: confidence interval; HR: hazard ratio;IGT: impaired glucose tolerance; IRR: incidence rate ratio; NA: not applicable; N/M: fewer than 3 studies or calculation of the 95% prediction interval did not provide a meaningful estimate; T2DM: type 2 diabetes mellitus.

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: we are very uncertain about the estimate.

aWith phase 2 explanatory studies aiming to confirm independent associations between the prognostic factor and the outcome, GRADE starts with 'high quality' (Huguet 2013). We assumed the GRADE factor publication bias was inherent with this type of research (phase 2 design), so we did not use it as a potential downgrading factor
bDowngraded by one level because of study limitations (many studies did not adequately adjust for confounders, if at all) and by one level because of imprecision (CIs were wide) and inconsistency (wide 95% prediction intervals sometimes ranging from negative to positive prognostic factor to outcome associations)

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings 4. Summary of findings: risk of intermediate hyperglycaemia (IGT definition) versus normoglycaemia for developing T2DM
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Summary of findings 5. Summary of findings: risk of intermediate hyperglycaemia (combined IFG and IGT definition) versus normoglycaemia for developing T2DM

Outcome: development of T2DM
Prognostic factor: intermediate hyperglycaemia as measured by combined IFG and IGT

No of studies

No of participants with intermediate hyperglycaemia

Geographic region/special population

Estimated effect (95% CI)
[95% prediction interval]

Overall certainty of the evidence (GRADE)a

HR: 3

IRR: 4

OR: 3

HR: 461

IRR: 3166

OR: 498

Asia/Middle East

HR: 10.20 (5.45–19.09) [N/M]

IRR: 11.20 (5.59–22.43) [N/M]

OR: 6.99 (3.09–15.83) [N/M]

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Lowb

HR: 1

IRR: 4

OR: 6

HR: 221

IRR: 699

OR: 154

Australia/Europe/North America

HR: 3.80 (2.30–6.28) [N/M]

IRR: 13.92 (9.99–19.40) [6.71–28.85]

OR: 20.95 (12.40–35.40) [4.93–89.05]

HR: 0

IRR: 0

OR: 0

HR: 0

IRR: 0

OR: 0

Latin America

HR: NA

IRR: NA

OR: NA

HR: 1

IRR: 1
OR: 0

HR: 356

IRR: 605
OR: 0

American Indians/Islands

HR: 4.06 (3.05–5.40)

IRR: 5.18 (3.42–7.83)
OR: NA

HR: 5

IRR: 9

OR: 9

HR: 1038

IRR: 4470

OR: 652

Overall

HR: 6.90 (4.15–11.45) [1.06–44.95]

IRR: 10.94 (7.22–16.58) [2.58–46.46]

OR: 13.14 (7.41–23.30) [1.84–93.66]

CI: confidence interval; HR: hazard ratio;IFG: impaired fasting glucose; IGT: impaired glucose tolerance; IRR: incidence rate ratio; NA: not applicable; N/M: fewer than 3 studies or calculation of the 95% prediction interval did not provide a meaningful estimate; OR: odds ratio; T2DM: type 2 diabetes mellitus.

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: we are very uncertain about the estimate.

aWith phase 2 explanatory studies aiming to confirm independent associations between the prognostic factor and the outcome, GRADE starts with 'high quality' (Huguet 2013). We assumed the GRADE factor publication bias was inherent with this type of research (phase 2 design), so we did not use it as a potential downgrading factor
bDowngraded by one level because of study limitations (many studies did not adequately adjust for confounders, if at all) and by one level because of imprecision (CIs were wide) and inconsistency (wide 95% prediction intervals)

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings 5. Summary of findings: risk of intermediate hyperglycaemia (combined IFG and IGT definition) versus normoglycaemia for developing T2DM
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Summary of findings 6. Summary of findings: risk of intermediate hyperglycaemia (HbA1c5.7 definition) versus normoglycaemia for developing T2DM

Outcome: development of T2DM
Prognostic factor: intermediate hyperglycaemia as measured by HbA1c5.7

No of studies

No of participants with intermediate hyperglycaemia

Geographic region/special population

Estimated effect (95% CI)
[95% prediction interval]

Overall certainty of the evidence (GRADE)a

HR: 3

IRR: 1

OR: 1

HR: 3196

IRR: 1965

OR: 675

Asia/Middle East

HR: 7.21 (5.14–10.11) [0.81–64.52]

IRR: 6.62 (4.18–10.49) [N/M]

OR: 4.54 (2.65–7.78) [N/M]

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Lowb

HR: 1

IRR: 0

OR: 2

HR: 2027

IRR: 0

OR: 231

Australia/Europe/North America

HR: 2.71 (2.48–2.96) [N/M]

IRR: NA

OR: 4.38 (1.36–14.15) [N/M]

HR: 0

IRR: 0

OR: 0

HR: 0

IRR: 0

OR: 0

Latin America

HR: NA

IRR: NA

OR: NA

HR: 0

IRR: 0

OR: 0

HR: 0

IRR: 0

OR: 0

American Indians/Islands

HR: NA

IRR: NA

OR: NA

HR: 4

IRR: 1

OR: 3

HR: 5223

IRR: 1965

OR: 906

Overall

HR: 5.55 (2.77–11.12) [0.23–141.18]

IRR: 6.62 (4.18–10.49) [N/M]

OR: 4.43 (2.20–8.88) [N/M]

CI: confidence interval; HbA1c5.7 : glycosylated haemoglobin A1c 5.7% threshold; HR: hazard ratio;IRR: incidence rate ratio; NA: not applicable; N/M: fewer than 3 studies or calculation of the 95% prediction interval did not provide a meaningful estimate; OR: odds ratio; T2DM: type 2 diabetes mellitus.

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: we are very uncertain about the estimate.

aWith phase 2 explanatory studies aiming to confirm independent associations between the prognostic factor and the outcome, GRADE starts with 'high quality' (Huguet 2013). We assumed the GRADE factor publication bias was inherent with this type of research (phase 2 design), so we did not use it as a potential downgrading factor
bDowngraded by one level because of study limitations (many studies did not adequately adjust for confounders, if at all) and by one level because of imprecision (CIs were wide) and inconsistency (95% prediction intervals sometimes ranging from negative to positive prognostic factor to outcome associations)

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings 6. Summary of findings: risk of intermediate hyperglycaemia (HbA1c5.7 definition) versus normoglycaemia for developing T2DM
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Summary of findings 7. Summary of findings: risk of intermediate hyperglycaemia (HbA1c6.0 definition) versus normoglycaemia for developing T2DM

Outcome: development of T2DM
Prognostic factor: intermediate hyperglycaemia as measured by HbA1c6.0

No of studies

No of participants with intermediate hyperglycaemia

Geographic region/special population

Estimated effect (95% CI)
[95% prediction interval]

Overall certainty of the evidence (GRADE)a

HR: 2

IRR: 0

OR: 1

HR: 1040

IRR: 0

OR: 370

Australia/Europe/North America

HR: 5.09 (1.69–15.37) [N/M]

IRR: NA

OR: 15.60 (6.90–35.27) [N/M]

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Lowb

HR: 4

IRR: 0

OR: 1

HR: 3492

IRR: 0

OR: 1103

Asia/Middle East

HR: 13.12 (4.10–41.96) [N/M]

IRR: NA

OR: 23.20 (18.70–28.78) [N/M]

HR: 0

IRR: 0

OR: 0

HR: 0

IRR: 0

OR: 0

Latin America

HR: NA

IRR: NA

OR: NA

IRR: 0
OR: 1
HR: 0

IRR: 0
OR: 121

HR: 0

American Indians/Islands

IRR: NA

OR: 5.89 (4.23–8.20) [N/M]

HR: NA

HR: 6

IRR: 0

OR: 3

HR: 4532

IRR: 0

OR: 1594

Overall

HR: 10.10 (3.59–28.43) [N/M]

IRR: NA

OR: 12.79 [4.56–35.85] [N/M]

CI: confidence interval; HbA1c6.0 : glycosylated haemoglobin A1c 6.0% threshold; HR: hazard ratio;IRR: incidence rate ratio; NA: not applicable; N/M: fewer than 3 studies or calculation of the 95% prediction interval did not provide a meaningful estimate; OR: odds ratio; T2DM: type 2 diabetes mellitus.

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: we are very uncertain about the estimate.

aWith phase 2 explanatory studies aiming to confirm independent associations between the prognostic factor and the outcome, GRADE starts with 'high quality' (Huguet 2013). We assumed the GRADE factor publication bias was inherent with this type of research (phase 2 design), so we did not use it as a potential downgrading factor
bDowngraded by one level because of study limitations (many studies did not adequately adjust for confounders, if at all) and by one level because of imprecision (most CIs were wide)

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings 7. Summary of findings: risk of intermediate hyperglycaemia (HbA1c6.0 definition) versus normoglycaemia for developing T2DM
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Table 1. Overview: overall prognosis of people with intermediate hyperglycaemia and regression from intermediate hyperglycaemia to normoglycaemia

Follow‐up time (years)

% (95% CI) cumulative T2DM incidence
[no of studies; no of participants with IH]

% (95% CI) regression from IH to normoglycaemia
[no of studies; no of participants with IH]

IFG5.6

IFG6.1

IGT

IFG + IGT

HbA1c5.7

HbA1c6.0

1

—

—

13 (5–23)

[3; 671]

29 (23–36)

[1; 207]

—

—

59 (54–64)

[2; 375]

2

2 (1–2)

[1; 1335]

11 (8–14)

[2; 549]

16 (9–26)

[9; 1998]

—

—

—

46 (36–55)

[9; 2852]

3

17 (6–32)

[3; 1091]

9 (2–20)

[3; 927]

22 (18–27)

[3; 417]

34 (28–41)

[1; 209]

—

7 (5–10)

[1; 370]

41 (24–59)

[7; 1356]

4

17 (13–22)

[3; 800]

30 (17–44)

[2; 1567]

22 (12–34)

[5; 1042]

—

14 (7–23)

[3; 5352]

44 (40–48)

[2; 627]

33 (26–40)

[3; 807]

5

18 (10–27)

[7; 3530]

26 (19–33)

[11; 3837]

39 (25–53)

[12; 3444]

50 (37–63)

[5; 478]

25 (18–32)

[4; 3524]

38 (26–51)

[3; 1462]

34 (27–42)

[9; 2603]

6

22 (15–31)

[4; 738]

37 (31–43)

[5; 279]

29 (25–34)

[7; 775]

58 (48–67)

[4; 106]

17 (14–20)

[1; 675]

—

23 (3–53)

[5; 1328]

7

18 (8–30)

[5; 980]

15 (0–45)

[4; 434]

19 (13–26)

[5; 835]

32 (20–45)

[4; 753]

21 (16–27)

[1; 207]

—

41 (37–45)

[4; 679]

8

34 (27–40)

[2; 1887]

48 (31–66)

[1;29]

43 (37–49)

[4; 1021]

52 (47–57)

[1; 356]

—

—

39 (33–44)

[2; 328]

9

38 (10–70)

[3; 1356]

—

53 (45–60)

[1; 163]

84 (74–91)

[1; 69]

—

—

17 (14–22)

[1; 299]

10

23 (14–33)

[6; 1542]

29 (17–43)

[6; 537]

26 (17–37)

[6; 443]

30 (17–44)

[2; 49]

31 (29–33)

[2; 2854]

—

42 (22–63)

[7; 894]

11

—

38 (33–43)

[1; 402]

46 (43–49)

[1; 1253]

—

—

—

28 (17–39)

[2; 736]

12

31 (19–34)

[3; 433]

31 (28–33)

[1; 1382]

41 (38–43)

[2; 1552]

70 (63–76)

[2; 207]

—

—

—

15

—

—

—

—

—

29 (19–40)

[1; 70]

—

20

—

—

60 (5–68)

[1; 114]

—

—

—

—

CI: confidence interval; HbA1c: glycosylated haemoglobin A1c; HbA1c5.7/6.0 (threshold 5.7% or 6.0%); IFG5.6/6.1 : impaired fasting glucose (threshold 5.6 mmol/L or 6.1 mmol/L); IGT: impaired glucose tolerance; IFG + IGT: both IFG and IGT; IH: intermediate hyperglycaemia; T2DM: type 2 diabetes mellitus

Figuras y tablas -
Table 1. Overview: overall prognosis of people with intermediate hyperglycaemia and regression from intermediate hyperglycaemia to normoglycaemia
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Table 2. Overview: intermediate hyperglycaemia versus normoglycaemia as a prognostic factor for the development of type 2 diabetes

Ratio (95% CI)
95% prediction intervala,b

[no of studies; no of participants with IH/no of participants with normoglycaemia]

Hazard ratio

Region

IFG5.6 cohort

IFG6.1 cohort

IGT cohort

IFG + IGT cohort

HbA1c5.7 cohort

HbA1c6.0 cohort

HbA1c5.7 + IFG5.6 cohort

Asia/Middle East

5.07 (3.41‐7.53)

1.07–24.02

[4; 2385/12,837]

10.55 (3.61–30.81)

NAb

[5; 1054/9756]

4.48 (2.81–7.15)

NAb

[3; 1780/6695]

10.20 (5.45–19.09)

NAb

[3; 461/6695]

7.21 (5.14–10.11)

0.81–64.52

[3; 3196/13,609]

13.12 (4.10–41.96)

NAb

[4; 3492/19,242]

32.50 (23.00–45.92)c

NAa

[1; 410/4149]

Australia/Europe/North America

4.15 (1.24–13.87)

NAb

[3; 5685/12,837]

3.30 (2.32–4.67)

0.84–12.99

[4; 1736/8835]

2.53 (1.52–4.19)

NAa

[2; 2230/5871]

3.80 (2.30–6.28)

NAa

[1; 221/1429]

2.71 (2.48–2.96)

NAa

[1: 2027/6215]

5.09 (1.69–15.37)

NAa

[2; 1040/6925]

—

Latin America

—

2.06 (1.76–2.41)

NAb
[1; 28/66]

—

—

—

—

—

American Indians/Islands

2.38 (1.85–3.06)

NAa

[1; 947/595]

—

—

4.06 (3.05–5.40)

NAa

[1; 356/595]

—

—

—

Overall

4.32 (2.61–7.12)

0.75–25.01

[8; 9017/25,850]

5.47 (3.50–8.54)

1.09–27.56

[9; 2818/18,591]

3.61 (2.31–5.64)

0.69–18.97

[5; 4010/12,566]

6.90 (4.15–11.45)

1.06–44.95

[5; 1038/8719]

5.55 (2.77–11.12)

0.23–141.18

[4; 5223/19,824]

10.10 (3.59–28.43)

NAb

[6; 4532/26,167]

32.50 (23.00–45.92)

NAa

[1; 410/4149]

Incidence rate ratio

Region

IFG5.6 cohort

IFG6.1 cohort

IGT cohort

IFG + IGT cohort

HbA1c5.7 cohort

HbA1c6.0 cohort

HbA1c5.7 + IFG5.6 cohort

Asia/Middle East

5.23 (3.77–7.25)

1.72–15.89

[6; 15,661/145,597]

3.62 (1.67–7.83)

NAa

[2; 1677/36,334]

3.93 (3.03–5.10)

1.71–9.02

[5; 14,809/73,128]

11.20 (5.59–22.43)

NAb

[4; 3166/69,463]

6.62 (4.18–10.49)

NAa

[1; 1965/19961]

—

40.72 (29.30–56.61)

NAa

[1; 1641/19,961]

Australia/Europe/North America

4.96 (3.25–7.57)

0.32–77.24

[3; 6322/8062]

8.55 (6.37–11.48)

4.37–16.73

[4; 3438/20,246]

5.93 (4.11–8.57)

2.38–14.81

[5; 2572/22,329]

13.92 (9.99–19.40)

6.71–28.85

[4; 699/18,966]

—

—

—

Latin America

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

American Indians/Islands

2.74 (1.88–3.99)

NAa

[1; 2374/1613]

—

4.46 (3.12–6.38)

NAa

[2; 1087/2952]

5.18 (3.42–7.83)

NAa

[1; 605/1613]

—

—

—

Overall

4.81 (3.67–6.30)

1.95–11.83

[10; 24,357/155,272]

6.82 (4.53–10.25)

2.03–22.87

[6; 5115/56,580]

4.48 (3.69–5.44)

2.60–7.70

[12; 18,468/98,409]

10.94 (7.22–16.58)

2.58–46.46

[9; 4470/90,072]

6.62 (4.18–10.5)

NAa

[1; 1965/19961]

—

40.72 (29.30–56.61)

NAa

[1; 1641/19,961]

Odds ratio

IFG5.6 cohort

IFG6.1 cohort

IGT cohort

IFG + IGT cohort

HbA1c5.7 cohort

HbA1c6.0 cohort

HbA1c5.7 + IFG5.6 cohort

Asia/Middle East

2.94 (1.77–4.86)

0.43–19.93

[10; 6359/28,218]

5.18 (2.32–11.53)

0.29–91.37

[7; 3317/25,604]

3.74 (2.83–4.94)

1.70–8.21

[6; 1226/7417]

6.99 (3.09–15.83)

NAb

[3; 498/3704]

4.54 (2.65–7.78)

NAa

[1; 675/462]

23.20 (18.70–28.78)

NAa

[1; 1103/10,763]

46.70 (33.60–64.91)

NAa

[1; 1951/10,761]

Australia/Europe/North America

6.47 (3.81–11.00)

0.99–42.32

[9; 1949/7920]

8.69 (4.95–15.24)

1.20–62.69

[7; 1240/5094]

5.20 (3.62–7.45)

1.50–18.09

[11; 1481/7684]

20.95 (12.40–35.40)

4.93–89.05

[6; 154/5300]

4.38 (1.36–14.15)

NAa

[2; 231/2100]

15.60 (6.90–35.27)

NAa

[1; 370/5365]

26.20 (16.30–41.11)

NAa

[1; 169/1125]

Latin America

4.28 (3.21–5.71)

NAa

[1; 65/1594]

3.73 (2.18–6.38)

NAa

[1; 17/1594]

4.94 (3.15–7.76)

NAa

[2; 381/3097]

—

—

—

—

American Indians/Islands

3.12 (2.31–4.21)

NAa

[1; 947/595]

—

3.60 (1.40–9.26)

NAa

[1; 51/215]

—

—

5.89 (4.23–8.20)

NAa

[1; 121/595]

—

Overall

4.15 (2.75–6.28)

0.54–32.00

[21; 9320/38,327]

6.60 (4.18–10.43)

0.93–46.82

[15; 4574/32,292]

4.61 (3.76–5.64)

2.10–10.13

[20; 3139/18,413]

13.14 (7.41–23.30)

1.84–93.66

[9; 652/9004]

4.43 (2.20–8.88)

NAb

[3; 906/2562]

12.8 [4.56–35.9]

NAb

[3; 1594/16,723]

35.91 (20.43–63.12)

NAa

[2; 2120/11,886]

CI: confidence interval; HbA1c: glycosylated haemoglobin A1c; HbA1c5.7/6.0 (threshold 5.7% or 6.0%); HbA1c5.7 + IFG5.6 : both HbA1c5.7 and IFG5.6; IFG5.6/6.1 : impaired fasting glucose (threshold 5.6 mmol/L or 6.1 mmol/L); IGT: impaired glucose tolerance; IFG + IGT: both IFG and IGT; IH: intermediate hyperglycaemia; NA: not applicable; T2DM: type 2 diabetes mellitus; NR: not reported
aWith fewer than 3 studies a prediction interval could not be calculated
bCalculation of the 95% prediction interval did not provide a meaningful estimate
cCombination of HbA1c6.0 plus IFG5.6 at baseline showed a hazard ratio for T2DM development of 53.7 (95% CI 38.4–75.1)

Figuras y tablas -
Table 2. Overview: intermediate hyperglycaemia versus normoglycaemia as a prognostic factor for the development of type 2 diabetes
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 1. Hazard ratio as the effect measure for the development of T2DM

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 T2DM incidence (IFG5.6) Show forest plot

8

34867

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

4.32 [2.61, 7.12]

1.1 Asia/Middle East

4

14803

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

5.07 [3.41, 7.53]

1.2 Australia/Europe/North America

3

18522

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

4.15 [1.24, 13.87]

1.3 American Indians/Islands

1

1542

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

2.38 [1.85, 3.06]

2 T2DM incidence (IFG6.1) Show forest plot

10

21475

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

5.47 [3.50, 8.54]

2.1 Asia/Middle East

5

10810

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

10.55 [3.61, 30.81]

2.2 Australia/Europe/North America

4

10571

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

3.30 [2.32, 4.67]

2.3 Latin America

1

94

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

2.06 [1.76, 2.41]

3 T2DM incidence (IGT) Show forest plot

5

16576

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

3.61 [2.31, 5.64]

3.1 Asia/Middle East

3

8475

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

4.48 [2.81, 7.15]

3.2 Australia/Europe/North America

2

8101

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

2.53 [1.52, 4.19]

4 T2DM incidence (IFG + IGT) Show forest plot

5

9757

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

6.90 [4.15, 11.45]

4.1 Asia/Middle East

3

7156

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

10.20 [5.45, 19.09]

4.2 Australia/Europe/North America

1

1650

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

3.80 [2.30, 6.28]

4.3 American Indians/Islands

1

951

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

4.06 [3.05, 5.40]

5 T2DM incidence (HbA1c5.7) Show forest plot

4

25047

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

5.55 [2.77, 11.12]

5.1 Asia

3

16805

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

7.21 [5.14, 10.11]

5.2 Australia/Europe/North America

1

8242

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

2.71 [2.48, 2.96]

6 T2DM incidence (HbA1c6.0) Show forest plot

6

30699

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

10.10 [3.59, 28.43]

6.1 Asia/Middle East

4

22734

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

13.12 [4.10, 41.96]

6.2 Australia/Europe/North America

2

7965

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

5.09 [1.69, 15.37]

7 T2DM incidence (HbA1c + IFG) Show forest plot

1

Hazard Ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

7.1 HbA1c5.7 + IFG5.6

1

4559

Hazard Ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

32.50 [23.00, 45.92]

7.2 HbA1c5.7 + IFG6.1

1

5357

Hazard Ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

37.90 [28.10, 51.12]

7.3 HbA1c6.0 + IFG5.6

1

4628

Hazard Ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

53.70 [38.40, 75.09]

7.4 HbA1c6.0 + IFG6.1

1

5802

Hazard Ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

52.30 [37.80, 72.37]
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Hazard ratio as the effect measure for the development of T2DM
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 2. Odds ratio as the effect measure for the development of T2DM

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 T2DM incidence (IFG5.6) Show forest plot

21

47647

Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

4.15 [2.75, 6.28]

1.1 Asia/Middle East

10

34577

Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

2.94 [1.77, 4.86]

1.2 Australia/Europe/North America

9

9869

Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

6.47 [3.81, 11.00]

1.3 Latin America

1

1659

Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

4.28 [3.21, 5.71]

1.4 American Indians/Islands

1

1542

Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

3.12 [2.31, 4.21]

2 T2DM incidence (IFG6.1) Show forest plot

15

36866

Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

6.60 [4.18, 10.43]

2.1 Asia/Middle East

7

28921

Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

5.18 [2.32, 11.53]

2.2 Australia/Europe/North America

7

6334

Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

8.69 [4.95, 15.24]

2.3 Latin America

1

1611

Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

3.73 [2.18, 6.38]

3 T2DM incidence (IGT) Show forest plot

20

21552

Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

4.61 [3.76, 5.64]

3.1 Asia/Middle East

6

8643

Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

3.74 [2.83, 4.94]

3.2 Australia/Europe/North America

11

9165

Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

5.20 [3.62, 7.45]

3.3 Latin America

2

3478

Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

4.94 [3.15, 7.76]

3.4 American Indians/Islands

1

266

Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

3.60 [1.40, 9.26]

4 T2DM incidence (IFG + IGT) Show forest plot

9

9656

Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

13.14 [7.41, 23.30]

4.1 Asia/Middle East

3

4202

Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

6.99 [3.09, 15.83]

4.2 Australia/Europe/North America

6

5454

Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

20.95 [12.40, 35.40]

5 T2DM incidence (HbA1c5.7) Show forest plot

3

3468

Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

4.43 [2.20, 8.88]

5.1 Asia/Middle East

1

1137

Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

4.54 [2.65, 7.78]

5.2 Europe/North America

2

2331

Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

4.38 [1.36, 14.15]

6 T2DM incidence (HbA1c6.0) Show forest plot

3

18317

Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

12.79 [4.56, 35.85]

6.1 Asia/Middle East

1

11866

Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

23.20 [18.70, 28.78]

6.2 Australia/Europe/North America

1

5735

Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

15.60 [6.90, 35.27]

6.3 American Indians/Islands

1

716

Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

5.89 [4.23, 8.20]

7 T2DM incidence (HbA1c5.7 + IFG5.6) Show forest plot

2

14006

Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

35.91 [20.43, 63.12]

7.1 Australia/Europe/North America

1

1294

Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

26.20 [16.30, 42.11]

7.2 Asia/Middle East

1

12712

Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

46.70 [33.60, 64.91]
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 2. Odds ratio as the effect measure for the development of T2DM
Ir a la tabla de la revisión