Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22237689›Full record

ArticleDiabetologia2012

How much does screening bring forward the diagnosis of type 2 diabetes and reduce complications? Twelve year follow-up of the Ely cohort.

M Rahman, R K Simmons, S H Hennings, N J Wareham, S J Griffin

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Diabetologia, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Screening for type 2 diabetes mellitus.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Glucose challenge test screening for prediabetes and early diabetes.Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2017
    Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Screening for Diabetes and Prediabetes.Endocrinology and metabolism clinics of North America · 2021
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

M RahmanGeneral Practice and Primary Care Research Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
R K Simmons
S H Hennings
N J Wareham
S J Griffin
Addenbrooke's Hospital · GBMRC Epidemiology Unit · GBUniversity of Cambridge · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_U106179471Medical Research Council MC_U106179474
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsThere are continuing uncertainties about how much screening for type 2 diabetes brings forward the clinical diagnosis and the impact that earlier diagnosis has on health outcomes. We compared the duration of diabetes and health outcomes in a population invited for diabetes screening at 5-yearly intervals from 1990 (screened population) with those in a similar population not invited for screening (unscreened population).

methodsThis was a parallel-group, cohort study of people aged 40-65 years, free of known diabetes, identified from the population register of a general practice in Ely, Cambridgeshire, UK (n = 4,936). In 1990-1992, one-third (n = 1,705), selected randomly, received an invitation for screening for diabetes and cardiovascular risk factors at 5-yearly intervals (screened population). From the remainder of the sampling frame, 1,705 randomly selected individuals were invited to diabetes screening 10 years later (unscreened population). Patients with diabetes from both populations were invited for a health assessment, including biochemical, anthropometric and questionnaire measures, and testing for the presence of diabetic complications

resultsOf the 199 eligible individuals with diabetes diagnosed during follow-up, 152 (76%) attended for health assessment. The median duration of clinically recognised diabetes was significantly longer in cases arising in the screened (5.0 years) compared with the unscreened population (1.7 years; p = 0.006). Clinical measures, prescribed medication and functional status were similar between screened and unscreened populations.

conclusionsDiabetes screening resulted in cases being identified on average 3.3 years earlier, a difference significantly shorter than previous estimates. Earlier diagnosis did not appear to impact on health outcomes. Further evidence is needed to justify the introduction of population-based screening.

Indexed as

AdultAgedCohort StudiesDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Early DiagnosisFemaleHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedOutcome Assessment, Health Care

Identifiers

PMID22237689
OpenAlexW2071756238

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.