ArticleJournal of the National Medical Association2011
Implications of the new definition of diabetes for health disparities.
Article in Journal of the National Medical Association, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quantitative Proteomic Analysis of Serum Reveals MST1 as a Potential Candidate Biomarker in Spontaneously Diabetic Cynomolgus Monkeys.ACS omega · 2022Article
- Significance of HbA1c and its measurement in the diagnosis of diabetes mellitus: US experience.Diabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity : targets and therapy · 2014Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
In July 2009, an international committee announced a new diagnostic criterion for diabetes based on hemoglobin Alc (HbA1c) values. Our objective was to estimate how the new diabetes diagnostic criterion will affect the prevalence of diabetes among different race, age, and gender subpopulations, compared to the previously used fasting plasma glucose (FPG) criterion. We analyzed nationally representative data from The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), aggregated from 1999 to 2006. We estimated the prevalence of known diabetes (prevalence static across either diagnostic criterion), unknown, and no diabetes (prevalence variable by criterion). We tested statistical significance of prevalence differences for unknown diabetes between the prior diagnostic criterion--FPG of at least 126 mg/dL--and the new diagnostic criterion--HbA1c of at least 6.5%--using conditional logistic regression. We further tested the association of these differences with demographic factors. The new HbA1c diagnostic criterion differentially affects different racial/ethnic groups. For non-Hispanic whites, the prevalence of undiagnosed diabetes was more than halved from 2.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.2-3.1) with FPG diagnosis to 1.3% (95% CI, 1.0-1.7), P<.001 with HbAic diagnosis. For Hispanics and non-Hispanic blacks, the differences in prevalence by the 2 criteria were smaller and nonsignificant. Racial differences by diagnostic criteria were most pronounced among people aged over 55 years. Overall, the new definition of diabetes differentially affects ethnic groups, especially for older people. If the new criterion is widely adopted, over time, we may see an apparent widening of racial/ethnic disparities in diabetes prevalence.
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.