General population screening for type 1 diabetes (T1D) according to modified Wilson and Jungner criteria
| Modified Wilson and Jungner classic screening criteria | Yes | No | Uncertain | Comments |
| 1. The condition sought should be an important health problem. | ✓ | |||
| 2. The target population for screening should be clearly defined and able to be reached. | ✓ | Ages for testing need to be agreed | ||
| 3. There should be an accepted treatment or course of action for patients who test positive that results in improved outcomes. | ✓ | Need to define follow-up for both multiple and single IAb positive Need of T1D preventive treatments | ||
| 4. Facilities for diagnosis and treatment should be available. | ✓ | Implementation in routine laboratories needed | ||
| 5. There should be a recognisable latent or early symptomatic stage. | ✓ | |||
| 6. There should be a suitable test or examination with appropriate performance characteristics. | ✓ | Test performance needs validation on population level | ||
| 7. The test should be acceptable to the population. | ✓ | Will need testing in individual countries and communities | ||
| 8. The screening test results should be clearly interpretable. | ✓ | Double IAb positive defined Single IAb positive result not fully established | ||
| 9. The natural history of the condition, including development from latent to declared disease, should be adequately understood. | ✓ | |||
| 10.The cost of case finding (including diagnosis and treatment of patients diagnosed) should be economically balanced in relation to possible expenditure on medical care as a whole. | ✓ | UK-specific cost-effectiveness needs to be tested | ||
| 11.The overall benefit of the programme should outweigh its harms. | ✓ | More data needed on benefits and harm | ||
| 12.Case finding should be a continuing process and not a ‘once and for all’ project, with ongoing monitoring and development of the programme. | ✓ | National screening programmes embedded in clinical care are required |