Journal of Clinical & Translational Endocrinology (Sep 2020)

Identifying optimal survey-based algorithms to distinguish diabetes type among adults with diabetes

  • Jennifer G. Nooney,
  • M. Sue Kirkman,
  • Kai McKeever Bullard,
  • Zachary White,
  • Kristi Meadows,
  • Joanne R. Campione,
  • Russ Mardon,
  • Gonzalo Rivero,
  • Stephen R. Benoit,
  • Emily Pfaff,
  • Deborah Rolka,
  • Sharon Saydah

Journal volume & issue
Vol. 21
p. 100231

Abstract

Read online

Objectives: Surveys for U.S. diabetes surveillance do not reliably distinguish between type 1 and type 2 diabetes, potentially obscuring trends in type 1 among adults. To validate survey-based algorithms for distinguishing diabetes type, we linked survey data collected from adult patients with diabetes to a gold standard diabetes type. Research design and methods: We collected data through a telephone survey of 771 adults with diabetes receiving care in a large healthcare system in North Carolina. We tested 34 survey classification algorithms utilizing information on respondents’ report of physician-diagnosed diabetes type, age at onset, diabetes drug use, and body mass index. Algorithms were evaluated by calculating type 1 and type 2 sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) relative to a gold standard diagnosis of diabetes type determined through analysis of EHR data and endocrinologist review of selected cases. Results: Algorithms based on self-reported type outperformed those based solely on other data elements. The top-performing algorithm classified as type 1 all respondents who reported type 1 and were prescribed insulin, as “other diabetes type” all respondents who reported “other,” and as type 2 the remaining respondents (type 1 sensitivity 91.6%, type 1 specificity 98.9%, type 1 PPV 82.5%, type 1 NPV 99.5%). This algorithm performed well in most demographic subpopulations. Conclusions: The major federal health surveys should consider including self-reported diabetes type if they do not already, as the gains in the accuracy of typing are substantial compared to classifications based on other data elements. This study provides much-needed guidance on the accuracy of survey-based diabetes typing algorithms.

Keywords