Risk prediction models for incident type 2 diabetes: A scoping review and an update to a systematic review
Authors' conclusion
Discrimination reporting is now standard, but external validation, calibration, and risk-of-bias reporting remain inconsistent.
Study context
- Population
- Original English-language regression-based prediction models for incident T2D in adults; validation studies, machine-learning models and non-original publications excluded
- Participants
- 50 vs 20
- Comparison
- Scoping review vs Systematic update
- Scoping reviewn = 50
- Systematic updaten = 20
- Outcome
- Reporting of validation, calibration and discrimination
Methodological detailsnarrative and descriptive synthesis, quality assessed using CHARMS, TRIPOD and PROBAST, PubMed searched
- Narrative and descriptive synthesis
- Quality assessed using CHARMS, TRIPOD and PROBAST
- PubMed searched
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
| Group | Internal validation reported | External validation reported | AUC reported | Median n | Follow-up | Calibration reported | High risk of bias |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scoping review | 84.0% | 16.0% | 90.0% | 5,217 | 7 years | ||
| Systematic update | 55.0% | 50.0% | 75.0% | 8,879 | 8.7 years | 75.0% | 85.0% |
Internal validation reported
Scoping review84.0%
Systematic update55.0%
External validation reported
Scoping review16.0%
Systematic update50.0%
AUC reported
Scoping review90.0%
Systematic update75.0%
Median n
Scoping review5,217
Systematic update8,879
Follow-up
Scoping review7 years
Systematic update8.7 years
Calibration reported
Scoping review— not stated in the abstract
Systematic update75.0%
High risk of bias
Scoping review— not stated in the abstract
Systematic update85.0%
Original publication
Risk prediction models for incident type 2 diabetes: A scoping review and an update to a systematic review. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. Published 20 September 2026. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →