ArticleAnnals of Saudi medicine
Predicting glucose intolerance with normal fasting plasma glucose by the components of the metabolic syndrome.
Article in Annals of Saudi medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSurprisingly, it is estimated that about half of type 2 diabetics remain undetected. The possible causes may be partly attributable to people with normal fasting plasma glucose (FPG) but abnormal postprandial hyperglycemia. We attempted to develop an effective predictive model by using the metabolic syndrome (MeS) components as parameters to identify such persons. SUBJECTS AND
methodsAll participants received a standard 75-g oral glucose tolerance test, which showed that 106 had normal glucose tolerance, 61 had impaired glucose tolerance, and 6 had diabetes-on-isolated postchallenge hyperglycemia. We tested five models, which included various MeS components. Model 0: FPG; Model 1 (clinical history model): family history (FH), FPG, age and sex; Model 2 (MeS model): Model 1 plus triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, body mass index, systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure; Model 3: Model 2 plus fasting plasma insulin (FPI); Model 4: Model 3 plus homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance. A receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to determine the predictive discrimination of these models.
resultsThe area under the ROC curve of the Model 0 was significantly larger than the area under the diagonal reference line. All the other 4 models had a larger area under the ROC curve than Model 0. Considering the simplicity and lower cost of Model 2, it would be the best model to use. Nevertheless, Model 3 had the largest area under the ROC curve.
conclusionWe demonstrated that Model 2 and 3 have a significantly better predictive discrimination to identify persons with normal FPG at high risk for glucose intolerance.
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.