Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22382521›Full record

ArticleDiabetologia2012

To test, or not to test: time for a MODY calculator?

P R Njølstad, A Molven

Abstract readComment
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 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Challenges in diagnosis and treatment of KCNJ11-MODY.Endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism case reports · 2024
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Identification of NovelJournal of diabetes research · 2021
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

P R NjølstadDepartment of Clinical Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway, pal.njolstad@uib.no.
A Molven

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To test, or not to test, that is often the question in diabetes genetics. This is why the paper of Shields et al in the current issue of Diabetologia is so warmly welcomed. MODY is the most common form of monogenic diabetes. Nevertheless, the optimal way of identifying MODY families still poses a challenge both for researchers and clinicians. Hattersley's group in Exeter, UK, have developed an easy-to-use MODY prediction model that can help to identify cases appropriate for genetic testing. By answering eight simple questions on the internet ( www.diabetesgenes.org/content/mody-probability-calculator ), the doctor receives a positive predictive value in return: the probability that the patient has MODY. Thus, the classical binary (yes/no) assessment provided by clinical diagnostic criteria has been substituted by a more rational, quantitative estimate. The model appears to discriminate well between MODY and type 1 and type 2 diabetes when diabetes is diagnosed before the age of 35 years. However, the performance of the MODY probability calculator should now be validated in other settings than where it was developed-and, as always, there is room for some improvements and modifications.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalDiabetes Mellitus, Type 1Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2FemaleHumansMale

Identifiers

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.