Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23393215›Full record

ArticleDiabetes care2013

Screening for diabetes and prediabetes should be cost-saving in patients at high risk.

Ranee Chatterjee, K M Venkat Narayan, Joseph Lipscomb, Sandra L Jackson, Qi Long, Ming Zhu, Lawrence S Phillips

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diabetes care, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Glucose challenge test screening for prediabetes and early diabetes.Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2017
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. A Systematic Approach to Treating Early Metabolic Disease and Prediabetes.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2023
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Alternative type 2 diabetes screening tests may reduce the number of U.S. adults with undiagnosed diabetes.Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2020
    Article
  18. Review of methods for detecting glycemic disorders.Diabetes research and clinical practice · 2020
    Review
  19. The Oral Glucose Tolerance Test: 100 Years Later.Diabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity : targets and therapy · 2020
    Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Ranee ChatterjeeDepartment of General Internal Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, USA. ranee.chatterjee@duke.edu
K M Venkat Narayan
Joseph Lipscomb
Sandra L Jackson
Qi Long
Ming Zhu
Lawrence S Phillips
Emory University · USAtlanta VA Medical Center · USDuke University · US

Funding

CTSA INFRASTRUCTURE FOR PEDIATRIC RESEARCHUL1RR025008 · NCRR · EMORY UNIVERSITY · PI STEPHENS, DAVID S · 2007 to 2011
$29.0M
Atlanta Clinical and Translational Science Institute (ACTSI) RenewalUL1TR000454 · NCATS · EMORY UNIVERSITY · PI STEPHENS, DAVID S · 2012 to 2016
$25.8M
Screening for IGT: Glucose Challenge vs Predictive ModelR18DK066204 · NIDDK · EMORY UNIVERSITY · PI PHILLIPS, LAWRENCE S · 2004 to 2007
$2.9M
Nutrition Sciences and HealthT32DK007734 · NIDDK · EMORY UNIVERSITY · PI RAMAKRISHNAN, USHA · 1997 to 2016
$2.5M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000454NCRR NIH HHS UL1-RR0-25008NIDDK NIH HHS DK0-66204NIDDK NIH HHS T32 DK007734
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveAlthough screening for diabetes and prediabetes is recommended, it is not clear how best or whom to screen. We therefore compared the economics of screening according to baseline risk. RESEARCH DESIGN AND

methodsFive screening tests were performed in 1,573 adults without known diabetes--random plasma/capillary glucose, plasma/capillary glucose 1 h after 50-g oral glucose (any time, without previous fast, plasma glucose 1 h after a 50-g oral glucose challenge [GCTpl]/capillary glucose 1 h after a 50-g oral glucose challenge [GCTcap]), and A1C--and a definitive 75-g oral glucose tolerance test. Costs of screening included the following: costs of testing (screen plus oral glucose tolerance test, if screen is positive); costs for false-negative results; and costs of treatment of true-positive results with metformin, all over the course of 3 years. We compared costs for no screening, screening everyone for diabetes or high-risk prediabetes, and screening those with risk factors based on age, BMI, blood pressure, waist circumference, lipids, or family history of diabetes.

resultsCompared with no screening, cost-savings would be obtained largely from screening those at higher risk, including those with BMI >35 kg/m(2), systolic blood pressure ≥130 mmHg, or age >55 years, with differences of up to -46% of health system costs for screening for diabetes and -21% for screening for dysglycemia110, respectively (all P < 0.01). GCTpl would be the least expensive screening test for most high-risk groups for this population over the course of 3 years.

conclusionsFrom a health economics perspective, screening for diabetes and high-risk prediabetes should target patients at higher risk, particularly those with BMI >35 kg/m(2), systolic blood pressure ≥130 mmHg, or age >55 years, for whom screening can be most cost-saving. GCTpl is generally the least expensive test in high-risk groups and should be considered for routine use as an opportunistic screen in these groups.

Indexed as

AdultAgedBlood GlucoseDiabetes MellitusFemaleHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPrediabetic StateBlood Glucose

Identifiers

PMID23393215
PMCPMC3687271
OpenAlexW2105429583

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.