Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the most robust and valid approach to evaluate screening for diseases. Many in the diabetes research community have advocated sole reliance on RCTs for designing diabetes screening policies. However, the challenges of conducting RCTs of screening for type 2 diabetes may have been underappreciated.
Purpose
Discuss the key theoretical concepts and practical challenges of designing and conducting RCTs of diabetes screening.
Methods
Narrative and critical review of the literature pertaining to the theory and practice of designing and conducting RCTs of diabetes screening.
Results
We present the theoretical basis of a diabetes screening trial, using concepts developed mainly in studies of cancer screening and illustrations from the Cambridge component of the Anglo Danish Dutch Study of Intensive Treatment In peOple with screeN-detected diabetes in primary care (ADDITION-Cambridge), the only extant trial of diabetes screening. We examine design issues, including the appropriate trial question, choice of design, and duration of follow-up, and address aspects of trial implementation, including recruitment, randomization, endpoint determination, sample size requirements, and screening interval.
Limitations
The limited number of trials of diabetes screening did not permit us to illustrate many of the practical difficulties one encounters when implementing theoretical concepts.
Conclusion
When diabetes screening trials are planned, we suggest careful consideration to potential areas of practical difficulty, especially the need for particularly large sample sizes and extended follow-up, and the choice of appropriate outcomes and screening intervals.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ProrokPC. Screening studies. In GreenwaldPKramerBS (eds). Cancer Prevention and Control. Marcel Dekker, New York, 1995, pp. 225–46.
2.
CadmanDChambersLFeldmanWSackettD. Assessing the effectiveness of community screening programs. JAMA1984; 251: 1580–85.
3.
SaslowDRunowiczCDSolomonD. American Cancer Society guideline for the early detection of cervical neoplasia and cancer. CA Cancer J Clin2002; 52: 342–62.
4.
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG practice bulletin. Cervical cytology screening. Number 45, August 2003. Int J Gynaecol Obstet2003; 83: 237–47.
5.
BuijsseBSimmonsRKGriffinSJSchulzeMB. Risk assessment tools for identifying individuals at risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Epidemiol Rev2011; 33: 46–62.
6.
NobleDMathurRDentTMeadsCGreenhalghT. Risk models and scores for type 2 diabetes: Systematic review. BMJ2011; 343: d7163.
7.
ThoopputraTNewbyDSchneiderJLiSC. Survey of diabetes risk assessment tools: Concepts, structure and performance. Diabetes Metab Res Rev2012; 28: 485–98.
8.
ProrokPCMarcusPM. Cancer screening trials: Nuts and bolts. Semin Oncol2010; 37: 216–23.
9.
LauritzenTGriffinSBorch-JohnsenK. The ADDITION study: Proposed trial of the cost-effectiveness of an intensive multifactorial intervention on morbidity and mortality among people with Type 2 diabetes detected by screening. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord2000; 24(Suppl. 3): S6–S11.
10.
Echouffo-TcheuguiJBSimmonsRKWilliamsKM. The ADDITION-Cambridge trial protocol: A cluster – Randomised controlled trial of screening for type 2 diabetes and intensive treatment for screen-detected patients. BMC Public Health2009; 9: 136.
11.
GriffinSJBorch-JohnsenKDaviesMJ. Effect of early intensive multifactorial therapy on 5-year cardiovascular outcomes in individuals with type 2 diabetes detected by screening (ADDITION-Europe): A cluster-randomised trial. Lancet2011; 378: 156–67.
12.
YudkinJSMontoriVMLipskaKJGaleEA. ADDITION-Europe and the case for diabetes screening – Authors’ reply. Lancet2012; 379: 313–14.
13.
EtzioniRDConnorRJPorokPCSelfSG. Design and analysis of cancer screening trials. Stat Methods Med Res1995; 4: 3–17.
14.
KuoHSChangHJChouPTengLChenTH. A Markov chain model to assess the efficacy of screening for non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM). Int J Epidemiol1999; 28: 233–40.
15.
HarrisMIKleinRWelbornTAKnuimanMW. Onset of NIDDM occurs at least 4–7 yr before clinical diagnosis. Diabetes Care1992; 15: 815–19.
16.
ShawJESicreeRAZimmetPZ. Global estimates of the prevalence of diabetes for 2010 and 2030. Diabetes Res Clin Pract2010; 87: 4–14.
17.
GrenLBroskiKChildsJ. Recruitment methods employed in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial. Clin Trials2009; 6: 52–59.
18.
PinskyPFFordMGamitoE. Enrollment of racial and ethnic minorities in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial. J Natl Med Assoc2008; 100: 291–98.
19.
PinskyPFMillerAKramerBS. Evidence of a healthy volunteer effect in the prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian cancer screening trial. Am J Epidemiol2007; 165: 874–81.
20.
SargeantLASimmonsRKBarlingRS. Who attends a UK diabetes screening programme? Findings from the ADDITION-Cambridge study. Diabet Med2010; 27: 995–1003.
21.
Van den DonkMSandbaekABorch-JohnsenK. Screening for type 2 diabetes. Lessons from the ADDITION-Europe study. Diabet Med2011; 28: 1416–24.
22.
FeigDSPaldaVALipscombeL. Screening for type 2 diabetes mellitus to prevent vascular complications: Updated recommendations from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. CMAJ2005; 172: 177–80.
23.
World Health Organization. Screening for type 2 diabetes. Report of a World Health Organization and International Diabetes Federation meeting, WHO/NMH/MNC/03.1, 2003. World Health Organization, Geneva.
24.
American Diabetes Association. Screening for type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care2003; 26(Suppl. 1): S21–S24.
25.
ZhangXLuoHGreggEW. Obesity prevention and diabetes screening at local health departments. Am J Public Health2010; 100: 1434–41.
26.
MossS. Design issues in cancer screening trials. Stat Methods Med Res2010; 19: 451–61.
27.
GotzschePCNielsenM. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2009; 1: CD001877.
28.
BlackWCHaggstromDAWelchHG. All-cause mortality in randomized trials of cancer screening. J Natl Cancer Inst2002; 94: 167–73.
29.
BlackWCWelchHG. Screening for disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol1997; 168: 3–11.
30.
AlibhaiSM. Cancer screening: The importance of outcome measures. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol2006; 57: 215–24.
31.
McEwenLNKimCHaanM. Diabetes reporting as a cause of death: Results from the Translating Research Into Action for Diabetes (TRIAD) study. Diabetes Care2006; 29: 247–53.
32.
ThomasonMJBiddulphJPCullCAHolmanRR. Reporting of diabetes on death certificates using data from the UK Prospective Diabetes Study. Diabet Med2005; 22: 1031–36.
33.
MillerABYurgalevitchSWeissfeldJL. Death review process in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial. Control Clin Trials2000; 21: 400S–6S.
34.
EborallHCGriffinSJPrevostAT. Psychological impact of screening for type 2 diabetes: Controlled trial and comparative study embedded in the ADDITION (Cambridge) randomised controlled trial. BMJ2007; 335: 486.
35.
PaddisonCAEborallHCSuttonS. Are people with negative diabetes screening tests falsely reassured? Parallel group cohort study embedded in the ADDITION (Cambridge) randomised controlled trial. BMJ2009; 339: b4535.
36.
EngelgauMMNarayanKMHermanWH. Screening for type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care2000; 23: 1563–80.
37.
Diabetes United Kingdom. Early identification of people with type 2 diabetes. Position Statement, June2006. Diabetes United Kingdom, London, 10 pp.
38.
GersteinHCSantaguidaPRainaP. Annual incidence and relative risk of diabetes in people with various categories of dysglycemia: A systematic overview and meta-analysis of prospective studies. Diabetes Res Clin Pract2007; 78: 305–12.
39.
BakerSGKramerBSProrokPC. Early reporting for cancer screening trials. J Med Screen2008; 15: 122–29.
40.
AuvinenARietbergenJBDenisLJSchroderFHProrokPC. Prospective evaluation plan for randomised trials of prostate cancer screening. The International Prostate Cancer Screening Trial Evaluation Group. J Med Screen1996; 3: 97–104.
41.
WeissNSEtzioniR. Estimating the influence of rescreening interval on the benefits associated with cancer screening: Approaches and limitations. Epidemiology2002; 13: 713–17.
42.
VescoKKWhitlockEPEderM. Risk factors and other epidemiologic considerations for cervical cancer screening: A narrative review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med2011; 155: 698–705, W216.
43.
SimmonsRKEchouffo-TcheuguiJBSharpSJ. Screening for type 2 diabetes and population mortality over 10 years (ADDITION-Cambridge): A cluster-randomised controlled trial. Lancet2012; 380: 1741–48.
44.
ProrokPCAndrioleGLBresalierRS. Design of the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial. Control Clin Trials2000; 21: 273S–309S.
