MDOI Convergence Chronicles 110.0598/CON.2026.00572
110.0598/CON.2026.00572
Article

Screening for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review of Recent Economic Evaluations

Zixuan Jin, MPH, Joshua Rothwell, Ka Keat Lim, MPharm, MSc, PhD 2025 Convergence Chronicles

Abstract

Objectives To examine recent economic evaluations and understand whether any type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) screening designs may represent better value for money and to rate their methodological qualities. Methods We systematically searched 3 concepts (economic evaluations [EEs], T2DM, screening) in 5 databases (Medline, Embase, EconLit, Web of Science, and Cochrane) for EEs published between 2010 and 2023. Two independent reviewers screened for and rated their methodological quality (using the Consensus on Health Economics Criteria Checklist-Extended). Results Of 32 EEs, a majority were from high-income countries (69%). Half used single biomarkers (50%) to screen adults ≥30 to <60 years old (60%) but did not report locations (69%), treatments for those diagnosed (66%), diagnostic methods (57%), or screening intervals (54%). Compared with no screening, T2DM screening using single biomarkers was found to be not cost-effective (23/54 comparisons), inconclusive (16/54), dominant (11/54), or cost-effective (4/54). Compared with no screening, screening with a risk score and single biomarkers was found to be cost-effective (21/40) or dominant (19/40). The risk score alone was mostly dominant (6/10). Compared with universal screening, targeted screening among obese, overweight, or older people may be cost-effective or dominant. Compared with fasting plasma glucose or fasting capillary glucose, screening using risk scores was found to be mostly dominant or cost-effective. Expanding screening locations or lowering HbA1c or fasting plasma glucose thresholds was found to be dominant or cost-effective. Each EE had 4 to 17 items (median 13/20) on Consensus on Health Economics Criteria Checklist-Extended rated “Yes/Rather Yes.” Conclusions EE findings varied based on screening tools, intervals, locations, minimum screening age, diagnostic methods, and treatment. Future EEs should more comprehensively report screening designs and evaluate T2DM screening in low-income countries.

Identifier Metadata

Identifier 110.0598/CON.2026.00572
Canonical mdoi:110.0598/CON.2026.00572
Resolver URL https://mdoi.org/110.0598/CON.2026.00572
Resource URL Open resource
Document URL Open document
Content Type Article
Authors Zixuan Jin, MPH, Joshua Rothwell, Ka Keat Lim, MPharm, MSc, PhD
Year 2025
Depositor Convergence Chronicles Organisation
Prefix 110.0598
Registered July 9, 2026
Updated July 10, 2026
Status Active
Visibility Public

Cite This Identifier

APA 7th Edition

Click to copy

MLA 9th Edition

Click to copy

Chicago 17th Edition

Click to copy

BibTeX

Click to copy

Persistent Identifier

mdoi:110.0598/CON.2026.00572

Click to copy

About MDOI

MDOI identifiers are permanent and unique identifiers assigned to digital objects to ensure long-term access, tracking, and referencing.

  • MDOI provides a permanent identity for digital objects.
  • Each MDOI is unique and points to one specific resource.
  • The prefix, such as 110.XXXX, identifies the registrant.
  • The suffix identifies the exact digital object.
  • MDOI remains stable even when a website URL changes.
  • It helps prevent broken links in digital publishing.
  • It makes academic and digital resources easier to find and cite.
  • MDOI supports proper tracking and management of digital content.
  • It improves the credibility and visibility of published resources.
  • MDOI ensures digital objects remain accessible, traceable, and reliable over time.
CO
Registered by Convergence Chronicles