Trial reportBMC family practice2008
Three years follow-up of screen-detected diabetic and non-diabetic subjects: who is better off? The ADDITION Netherlands study.
Trial report in BMC family practice, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Screening for diabetes: hope and despair.Diabetologia · 2012Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeople with non-diabetic hyperglycaemia might be at risk of lacking adequate control for cardiovascular risk factors. Our aim was to determine the extent of health care utilization and provision in primary care and to evaluate the risk of cardiovascular disease in persons with an elevated risk score in a stepwise diabetes screening programme.
methodsA total of 56,978 non-diabetic patients, aged 50-70 years, from 79 practices in the Netherlands were invited to participate in a screening programme starting with a questionnaire. Those with an elevated score, underwent further glucose testing. Screened participants with type 2 diabetes (n = 64), impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) (n = 62), impaired fasting glucose (IFG) (n = 86), and normal glucose tolerance (NGT) (n = 142) were compared after three years regarding use of medication, care provider encounters and occurrence of CVD.
resultsIn all glucose regulation categories cardiovascular medication was prescribed more frequently during follow-up with the strongest increase in diabetic patients. Number of practice visits was higher in diabetic patients compared to those in the other categories. Glucose, lipids, and blood pressure were measured most frequently in diabetic patients. Numbers of cardiovascular events in participants with NGT, IFG, IGT and diabetes were 16.7, 32.6, 17.3 and 15.7 per 1,000 person-years (non significant), respectively.
conclusionAfter three years of follow-up, screened non-diabetic participants with an elevated risk score had cardiovascular event rates comparable with diabetic patients. Screened non-diabetic persons are at risk of lacking optimal control for cardiovascular risk factors while screen-detected diabetic patients were controlled adequately.
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.