Definitive studies of the effectiveness of screening for type 2 diabetes are currently not available. RCTs would be the best means to assess effectiveness, but several barriers prevent these studies from being conducted. Prospective observational studies may characterize some of the benefits of screening by creating screened and unscreened groups for comparison. The availability of better data systems and health services research techniques will facilitate such comparisons. Unfortunately, the interpretation of the results of such studies is extremely problematic. Several screening tests have been evaluated. Risk assessment questionnaires have generally performed poorly as stand-alone tests. Screening with biochemical tests performs better. Venous and capillary glucose measurements may perform more favorably than urinary glucose or HbA(1c) measurements, and measuring postprandial glucose levels may have advantages over measuring fasting levels. However, performance of all screening tests is dependent on the cutoff point selected. Unfortunately, there are no well-defined and validated cutoff points to define positive tests. A two-stage screening test strategy may assist with a more efficient use of resources, although such approaches have not been rigorously tested. The optimal interval for screening is unknown. Even though periodic, targeted, and opportunistic screening within the existing health care system seems to offer the greatest yield and likelihood of appropriate follow-up and treatment, much of the reported experience with screening appears to be episodic poorly targeted community screening outside of the existing health care system. Statistical models have helped to answer some of the key questions concerning areas in which there is lack of empirical data. Current models need to be refined with new clinical and epidemiological information, such as the UKPDS results (200). In addition, future models need to include better information on the natural history of the preclinical phase of diabetes. Data from ongoing clinical trials of screening and treatment of impaired glucose tolerance, such as the Diabetes Prevention Program, may eventually offer more direct evidence for early detection and treatment of asymptomatic hyperglycemia (201). It will be important to use comprehensive cardiovascular disease modules that assess the conjoint influence of glucose and cardiovascular risk factor reduction, information on QOL, and refined economic evaluations using common outcome measures (cost per life-year or QALY gained) (11,178,202-204). Such studies should consider all of the costs associated with a comprehensive screening program, including, at a minimum, the direct costs of screening, diagnostic testing, and care for patients with diabetes detected through screening. Finally, combinations of screening tests and different screening intervals should be evaluated within economic studies to allow selection of the optimal approach within the financial and resource limitations of the health care system.