ArticlePediatric diabetes2011
Onset features and subsequent clinical evolution of childhood diabetes over several years.
Article in Pediatric diabetes, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of Glycemic Control on Platelet Indices in Children with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus.Sisli Etfal Hastanesi tip bulteni · 2024Article
- The Role of Childhood Obesity in Early-Onset Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Scoping Review.Cureus · 2023Article
- Assessment of hematologic indices and their correlation to hemoglobin A1c among Bosnian children with type 1 diabetes mellitus and their healthy peers.Journal of medical biochemistry · 2021Article
- Utility of diabetes-associated autoantibodies for classification of new onset diabetes in children and adolescents.Pediatric diabetes · 2016Article
- Aortic Intima-Media Thickness and Mean Platelet Volume in Children With Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus.Iranian journal of pediatrics · 2015Article
- Prevalence of diabetes in U.S. youth in 2009: the SEARCH for diabetes in youth study.Diabetes care · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo explore whether it is possible to predict a child's eventual diabetes phenotype using characteristics at initial presentation, we reassessed 111 young patients on average 7.8 ± 4.2 (2.2-19.7) [mean ± SD (range)] years after diagnosis.
methodsMedical records at diagnosis for 111 patients, aged 0-17, were compared with their follow-up characteristics including stimulated C-peptide (CP) and islet autoantibodies (AB).
resultsInitially, 18 patients were obese; 9 displayed other type 2 diabetes (T2DM) features (polycystic ovary syndrome, acanthosis, diagnosed T2DM); the remaining 84 had a classic type 1 diabetes (T1DM) presentation. At follow-up, 83 patients (75%) with no measured CP were classified as T1DM; 17 (15%) were CP+ and AB- and thus considered T2DM. Eleven patients with both T1DM and T2DM features were classified as having mixed diabetes phenotype (MDM). One-fifth (22 subjects) changed presumed phenotype at follow-up. In multivariable models, T1DM patients were younger at diagnosis, had higher initial glucose values, were more likely to have experienced ketoacidosis, and less likely to be obese or of African American ethnicity. CONCLUSIONS/
interpretationTen percent of subjects had MDM and 15% had T2DM at ∼8 years' duration. Although no onset feature was completely reliable, ketoacidosis and hyperglycemia were more likely to predict T1DM; obesity and African American ethnicity made T2DM more likely. At diagnosis, features of T2DM in addition to obesity were strongly predictive of eventual T2DM phenotype. Given the significant percentage who changed or had mixed phenotype, careful tracking of all young people with diabetes is essential to correctly determine eventual disease type.
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.