ArticleAtencion primaria2001
[Cardiovascular risk and the new diagnostic categories for diabetes mellitus proposed by the American Diabetes Association].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Variability in the calculation of coronary risk in type-2 diabetes mellitus].Atencion primaria · 2005Article
- [Calculation of coronary risk in the 35-60 year old population registered at a health centre].Atencion primaria · 2003Article
- [Tackling lipaemia in diabetes mellitus in primary care].Atencion primaria · 2003Article
- [What is diabetics' real cardiovascular risk?].Atencion primaria · 2002Article
- [Cardiovascular events linked to the new diagnostic categories of diabetes mellitus].Atencion primaria · 2002Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo study the cardiovascular risk (CVR) associated with the diagnostic criteria for diabetes proposed by the American Diabetes Association.
designCross-sectional, descriptive study.
settingUrban health district. PATIENTS: 1840 patients > 14 years old, selected by simple randomised sampling from the clinical records (CR) archive, were studied.
methodThrough review of the CR, the patients were classified as having: normal glycaemia, disturbed basal glycaemia (DBG) and type-2 diabetes mellitus (DM2). CVR was studied through the simplified Framingham method and the CVR factors of obesity, tobacco dependency, hypertension, hypercholesterolaemia and hypertriglyceridaemia. The likelihood of having high or very high CVR and the CVR factors described in the patients with DBG or DM2 were compared with the same in those with normal glycaemia, through logistical regression with the odds ratio adjusted for age and sex.
results1351 patients were classified: 995 with normal glycaemia, 146 with DBG and 210 with DM2. Patients with DBG or DM2 had greater likelihood of high or very high CVR, with some OR at 2.26 (95% CI, 1.39-3.69) and 2.74 (95% CI, 1.81-4.15), respectively. They also had differences (p < 0.05) for obesity (OR, 1.76 and 1.58), hypertension (OR, 1.75 and 2.15) and hypertriglyceridaemia (OR, 1.73 and 2.70), respectively. There were no differences (p > 0.05) for tobacco dependency and hypercholesterolaemia. No differences were found (p > 0.05) between DBG and DM2 for CVR and the CVR factors studied.
conclusionsPatients with DBG and DM2 are at high CVR.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.