Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23456482›Full record

ReviewCurrent diabetes reports2013

Hyperglycemia and vascular metabolic memory: truth or fiction?

Cristina Bianchi, Roberto Miccoli, Stefano Del Prato

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current diabetes reports, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. 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

3 authors.

Cristina BianchiDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Section of Diabetes and Metabolic Diseases, Nuovo Ospedale Santa Chiara, Via Paradisa, 2, 56124 Pisa, Italy.
Roberto Miccoli
Stefano Del Prato

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Prevention of long-term complications remains the main challenge in the treatment of diabetes. A strong relationship between glucose control and development of complications is apparent in all epidemiologic studies. Yet, intervention trials have yielded questionable results, particularly when intensive treatment was introduced in patients with long-standing diabetes. It has been postulated that in these subjects, prior exposure to chronic hyperglycemia may have generated a negative "metabolic memory," preventing full exertion of the beneficial effects of any subsequent improvement of glucose control. This phenomenon has been replicated in animal models and it recognizes a molecular basis in the role of oxidative stress, advanced glycation processes, and epigenetic mechanisms accounting for self-perpetuating modifications of gene expression. Conversely, early intervention in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes has proven that good glycemic control reduces the risk of development and progression of complications with a beneficial effect that extends well beyond the duration of near-normoglycemia. This has brought up the concept of "metabolic legacy," an advantage handed down by early and effective implementation of treatments designed to reduce blood glucose levels as safely as possible along with multifactorial intervention of all cardiovascular risk factors. The evidence, nature, and clinical implication of these concepts are reviewed.

Indexed as

AnimalsBlood VesselsHumansHyperglycemiaModels, Biological

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.