Performance of risk assessment models for prevalent or undiagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus in a multi-ethnic population: the Helius study

Background: Most risk assessment models for type 2 diabetes (T2DM) have been developed in Caucasians and Asians; little is known about their performance in other ethnic groups.Objective(s): We aimed to identify existing models for the risk of prevalent or undiagnosed T2DM and externally validate them in a multi-ethnic population currently living in the Netherlands.Methods: A literature search to identify risk assessment models for prevalent or undiagnosed T2DM was performed in PubMed until December 2017. We validated these models in 4,547 Dutch, 3,035 South Asian Surinamese, 4,119 African Surinamese, 2,326 Ghanaian, 3,598 Turkish, and 3,894 Moroccan origin participants from the HELIUS (Healthy LIfe in an Urban Setting) cohort study performed in Amsterdam. Model performance was assessed in terms of discrimination (C-statistic) and calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow test). We identified 25 studies containing 29 models for prevalent or undiagnosed T2DM. C-statistics varied between 0.77-0.92 in Dutch, 0.66-0.83 in South Asian Surinamese, 0.70-0.82 in African Surinamese, 0.61-0.81 in Ghanaian, 0.69-0.86 in Turkish, and 0.69-0.87 in the Moroccan populations. The C-statistics were generally lower among the South Asian Surinamese, African Surinamese, and Ghanaian populations and highest among the Dutch. Calibration was poor (Hosmer-Lemeshow p < 0.05) for all models except one.Conclusions: Generally, risk models for prevalent or undiagnosed T2DM show moderate to good discriminatory ability in different ethnic populations living in the Netherlands, but poor calibration. Therefore, these models should be recalibrated before use in clinical practice and should be adapted to the situation of the population they are intended to be used in.Therapeutic cell differentiatio

Integrating nurses' experiences with supporting behaviour change for cardiovascular prevention into a self-management internet platform in Finland and the Netherlands: a qualitative study

Contains fulltext : 204767.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access

A multi-centre, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial to compare a cervical pessary with a cervical cerclage in the prevention of preterm delivery in women with short cervical length and a history of preterm birth - PC study

Background Preterm birth is in quantity and in severity the most important contributor of perinatal morbidity and mortality both in well- and low-resource countries. Cervical pessary and cervical cerclage are both considered as preventive treatments in women at risk for preterm birth. We aim to evaluate whether a cervical pessary can replace cervical cerclage for preventing recurrent preterm birth in women with a prior preterm birth due to cervical insufficiency or in women with a prior preterm birth and a short cervix in the current pregnancy. Methods/design A nationwide open-label multicentre randomised clinical trial will be set up to study women with a singleton pregnancy and a prior preterm birth before 34 weeks of gestation. Women are eligible in case of previous preterm birth based on cervical insufficiency (primary intervention, <16 weeks) or in case of previous preterm birth and a short cervical length in current pregnancy ≤25 mm (secondary intervention, <24 weeks). Eligible women will be randomised to either cervical pessary or cervical cerclage. Both interventions will be removed at labour or at 36 weeks of gestational age, whatever comes first. The primary outcome will be delivery before 32 weeks. Secondary outcomes will be gestational age at birth, preterm birth rate before 24, 28, 34 and 37 weeks of gestation (overall and stratified by spontaneous or indicated delivery), premature rupture of membranes, use of tocolysis and/or corticosteroids during pregnancy, mode of delivery, maternal infections, maternal side effects, neonatal and maternal hospital admissions, and a composite of adverse perinatal outcomes including both morbidity and mortality. We assume an event rate of 20% preterm birth before 32 weeks for cerclage and use a non-inferiority margin of 10% for the cervical pessary. Using an alpha of 0.05 and power of 0.80 we need 2 groups of 200 women each. Discussion The outcome of this study will indicate the effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness of a cervical cerclage and of a cervical pessary