Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10480514›Full record

Trial reportDiabetes care1999

Risk of diabetes in the new diagnostic category of impaired fasting glucose: a prospective analysis.

O Vaccaro, G Ruffa, G Imperatore, V Iovino, A A Rivellese, G Riccardi

Abstract readClinical Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Diabetes care, 1999. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

36 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. The Natural Course of Impaired Fasting Glucose.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2021
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

O VaccaroDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Federico II University, Naples, Italy. scalaros@unina.it
G Ruffa
G Imperatore
V Iovino
A A Rivellese
G Riccardi

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo prospectively evaluate progression to diabetes in individuals with impaired glucose regulation as defined according to fasting glucose alone or an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) (i.e., both fasting and postload glucose) to compare the ability of these two screening methods to identify people at high risk of developing diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND

methodsA working population of 1,245 nondiabetic telephone company employees aged 40-59 years was studied by OGTT in 1980. Participants were classified according to baseline fasting glucose only (as encouraged by the American Diabetes Association [ADA]) or OGTT (as recommended by the 1998 World Health Organization [WHO] consultation). Progression to diabetes was evaluated 11.5 years later according to the 1997 ADA criteria of a fasting plasma glucose level > or =7.0 mmol/l.

resultsWith the use of the OGTT, baseline prevalence of impaired glucose regulation was substantially higher than that with fasting glucose alone (7.2 vs. 3.2%); the two groups only overlap for 40.9% of the cases because a fairly large number of people with postload hyperglycemia (59.1%) have normal fasting glucose. Progression to diabetes in participants with normal fasting glucose and postload hyperglycemia is significantly more frequent than that of people with normoglycemia (32.5 vs. 7.2%; P < 0.001) and not significantly different from that of people with both fasting and postload hyperglycemia (i.e., 44.0%). However, the former are not identified as being at unusually high risk of diabetes unless an OGTT is performed. When the use of fasting glucose alone or OGTT was validated as a marker of progression to diabetes, sensitivity was substantially higher for the OGTT (33.3 vs. 9.0%) without major differences in specificity (92.6 vs. 97.0%).

conclusionsThese data (the only data so far available in Caucasians) support the viewpoint that for the identification of people at high risk of diabetes, the use of the OGTT should be maintained.

Indexed as

Administration, OralAdultDisease ProgressionFastingGlucose IntoleranceGlucose Tolerance TestHumansItalyMiddle AgedOdds RatioPrevalenceRisk Factors

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.