ArticleBMJ open diabetes research & care2014
The reliability of in-hospital diagnoses of diabetes mellitus in the setting of an acute myocardial infarction.
Article in BMJ open diabetes research & care, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- EMERGE: Evaluating the value of Measuring Random Plasma Glucose Values for Managing Hyperglycemia in the Inpatient Setting.Journal of general internal medicine · 2023Article
- Plasma random glucose levels at hospital admission predicting worse outcomes in STEMI patients undergoing PCI: A case series.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2022Article
- Predicting Adverse Outcomes After Myocardial Infarction Among Patients With Diabetes Mellitus.Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes · 2016Article
- Recognition of incident diabetes mellitus during an acute myocardial infarction.Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveIncident diabetes mellitus (DM) is important to recognize in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). To develop an efficient screening strategy, we explored the use of random plasma glucose (RPG) at admission and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) to select patients with AMI for glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) testing. DESIGN SETTING ANDPARTICIPANTS: Prospective registry of 1574 patients with AMI not taking glucose-lowering medication from 24 US hospitals. All patients had HbA1c measured at a core laboratory and admission RPG and ≥2 FPGs recorded during hospitalization. We examined potential combinations of RPG and FPG and compared these with HbA1c≥6.5%-considered the gold standard for DM diagnosis in these analyses.
resultsAn RPG>140 mg/dL or FPG≥126 mg/dL had high sensitivity for DM diagnosis. Combining these into a screening protocol (if admission RPG>140, check HbA1c; or if FPG≥126 on a subsequent day, check HbA1c) led to HbA1c testing in 50% of patients and identified 86% with incident DM (number needed to screen (NNS)=3.3 to identify 1 case of DM; vs NNS=5.6 with universal HbA1c screening). Alternatively, using an RPG>180 led to HbA1c testing in 40% of patients with AMI and identified 82% of DM (NNS=2.7).
conclusionsWe have established two potential selective screening methods for DM in the setting of AMI that could identify the vast majority of incident DM by targeted screening of 40-50% of patients with AMI with HbA1c testing. Using these methods may efficiently identify patients with AMI with DM so that appropriate education and treatment can be promptly initiated.
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.