ArticlePloS one2014
Comparison of diabetes management status between cancer survivors and the general population: results from a Korean population-based survey.
Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quality of diabetes care in cancer: a systematic review.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2019Pooled it
- Article
- Association of dietary sodium intake with impaired fasting glucose in adult cancer survivors: A population-based cross-sectional study.PloS one · 2023Article
- Metabolic comorbidities and medical institution utilization among breast cancer survivors: a national population-based study.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2020Article
- The impact of cancer on diabetes outcomes.BMC endocrine disorders · 2019Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to determine and compare the prevalences of diabetes awareness, treatment, and adequate glycemic control among cancer survivors in a Korean population and two non-cancer control groups, comprising individuals without a history of cancer but with other chronic diseases (non-cancer, chronic disease controls) and individuals without a history of cancer or any other chronic disease (non-cancer, non-chronic disease controls).
methodsWe analyzed data from 2,660 subjects with prevalent diabetes (aged ≥30 years), who had participated in the 2007-2011 Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Awareness was defined as a subject having been diagnosed with diabetes by a clinician. Treatment was defined as a subject who was taking anti-diabetic medicine. Adequate glycemic control was defined as a hemoglobin A1c level of <7%. Multivariable logistic regression and predictive margins were used to evaluate whether awareness, treatment, or adequate glycemic control differed among cancer survivors and the two non-cancer control groups.
resultsCancer survivors had greater awareness compared with the non-cancer, chronic disease and non-cancer, non-chronic disease control groups (85.1%, 80.4%, and 60.4%, respectively). Although the prevalences of treatment and adequate glycemic control were higher for survivors compared with the non-cancer, non-chronic disease controls, they were lower compared with the non-cancer, chronic disease controls. The prevalence of diabetes treatment was 67.5% for cancer survivors, 69.5% for non-cancer, chronic disease controls, and 46.7% for non-cancer, non-chronic disease controls; the prevalences of adequate glycemic control in these three groups were 31.7%, 34.6%, and 17.8%, respectively.
conclusionsCancer survivors were less likely than the non-cancer chronic disease subjects to receive diabetes management and to achieve adequate glycemic targets. Special attention and education are required to ensure that this population receives optimal diabetes care, and the systematic roles for primary care and specialist physicians need to be determined.
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.