ArticlePharmacoepidemiology and drug safety2014
Misclassification in assessment of diabetogenic risk using electronic health records.
Article in Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Latent Variable Approach for Causal Effect Estimation Under Misclassified Treatment Assignment.Statistics in medicine · 2026Article
- A Road Map for Peer Review of Real-World Evidence Studies on Safety and Effectiveness of Treatments.Diabetes care · 2023Review
- Depression, antidepressant use, and the risk of type 2 diabetes: a nationally representative cohort study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Article
- High concordance between chart review adjudication and electronic medical record data to identify prevalent and incident diabetes mellitus among persons with and without HIV.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2020Article
- Bias in pharmacoepidemiologic studies using secondary health care databases: a scoping review.BMC medical research methodology · 2019Article
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 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeSuspected diabetogenic effects or drug indication may increase testing for diabetes mellitus (DM), resulting in measurement bias when evaluating diabetogenic drug effects. We sought to evaluate the validity of electronic health record data in determining DM risk.
methodsWe used time-dependent Cox proportional hazard models within a retrospective cohort design to assess associations between use of antihypertensives, statins, atypical antipsychotics, and antidepressants, and two endpoints: (i) DM onset defined as fasting blood glucose (BG) ≥126 mg/dl, random BG ≥200 mg/dl, HbA1c ≥7.0%, or antidiabetic drug initiation; and (ii) first negative DM test. We used Poisson regression to assess the influence of these drugs on DM testing rates. Patients aged 35-64 years enrolled in Kaiser Permanente Northwest between 1997 and 2010 entered the cohort at the first negative BG test after ≥6 months without manifest DM.
resultsAll drug classes showed significant associations not only with DM onset but also with first negative BG test and with DM testing rates. Antipsychotics had the greatest diabetogenic risk (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 1.73 [1.44-2.08]), the greatest propensity for a first negative test (adjusted HR = 1.87 [1.74-2.01]), and the highest testing rate (adjusted rate ratio = 1.76 [1.72-1.81]. Although renin-angiotensin system blockers and calcium channel blockers have shown no diabetogenic risk in clinical trials, both were associated with DM (HR = 1.19 [1.12-1.26] and 1.27 [1.17-1.38]), a negative glucose test (1.38 [1.35-1.41] and 1.24 [1.20-1.28]), and increased testing rates (rate ratio = 1.26 [1.24-1.27] and 1.27 [1.25-1.28]).
conclusionCaution should be used when diabetogenic risk is evaluated using data that rely on DM testing in general practice.
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.