Choosing the most appropriate existing type 2 diabetes risk assessment tool for use in the Philippines: a case-control study with an urban Filipino population

Table 4 Area Under the ROC Curve (AUC) for each Risk Assessment Tool, Compared with their Original Publication

Risk Assessment tool	Area under ROC curve in the original publication	Area under ROC curve	95% Confidence Interval	Q- value
CANRISK [8]	0.75	0.80	0.68–0.80	0.69
FINDRISC [9]	0.87	0.80	0.75–0.86	0.76
ADA [7]	0.72	0.76	0.71–0.83	0.73
IDRS [10]	0.69	0.69	0.62–0.77	0.72
Indonesian [11]	0.64	0.68	0.58–0.74	0.67
Filipino [12]	–	0.77	0.66–0.80	0.67

Using the published cut-off score of 9, the FINDRISC had a sensitivity of 0.92 and specificity of 0.45. Based on the ROC, the optimal cut-off point was a score of 10.50. When the cut-off score was 11, specificity was improved (0.71) while sensitivity was not greatly affected (0.86)
The larger the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC), the more the accurate a tool is considered. An AUC of 0.9–1.0 is considered excellent, 0.8–0.9 very good, 0.7–0.8 good, 0.6–0.7 sufficient, 0.5–0.6 bad, and less than 0.5 considered not useful [18]

ISSN: 1471-2458