Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25533392›Full record

ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2015

National patterns in diabetes screening: data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2005-2012.

Meghan M Kiefer, Julie B Silverman, Bessie A Young, Karin M Nelson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Improving Diabetes and Pre-Diabetes Detection in the UK: Insights From HbA1c Screening in an Acute Hospital's Emergency Department.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2025
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Improving Diabetes Screening in the Primary Care Clinic.Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Quality of Diabetes Care in the USA.Current cardiology reports · 2021
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Meghan M KieferDepartment of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA, meghanm@uw.edu.
Julie B Silverman
Bessie A Young
Karin M Nelson

Funding

Vector and Transgenic Mouse CoreP30DK017047 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI Tomas Vaisar · 1986 to 2026
$41.4M
NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK017047
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere are few current population-based estimates of the patterns of diabetes screening in the United States. The American Diabetes Association (ADA) recommends universal screening of adults ≥ 45 years, and high-risk adults < 45 years, but there is no current assessment of ADA guideline performance in detecting diabetes and prediabetes. Furthermore, data on racial/ethnic patterns of screening are limited.

objectiveOur aim was to estimate diabetes screening prevalence for the US adult population and specifically for those who meet ADA criteria; to report the prevalence of prediabetes and diabetes among these groups; and to determine if high-risk race/ethnicity was associated with reported screening.

designThis was a Cross-sectional survey.

participantsNon-pregnant adults (≥ 21 years) without diabetes or prediabetes who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) in 2005-2012 (n = 17,572) were included in the study. "Screening-recommended" participants, classified by ADA criteria, included (1) adults ≥ 45 years and (2) "high-risk" adults < 45 years. "Screening-not-recommended" participants were adults < 45 years who did not meet criteria. MAIN MEASURES: Diabetes screening status was obtained by self-report. We used calibrated HbA1c and/or fasting glucose levels to define undiagnosed diabetes and prediabetes. KEY

resultsSeventy-six percent of the study population (approximately 136 million US adults) met ADA criteria. Among them, less than half (46.2%) reported screening; undiagnosed diabetes affected 3.7% (5 million individuals), and undiagnosed prediabetes affected 36.3% (49 million people.) African Americans were more likely to report screening, both among adults ≥ 45 years and among "high risk" younger adults (OR 1.27 and 1.36, respectively.) Hispanic participants were also more likely to report screening (OR 1.31 for older adults, 1.42 for younger adults.) The screening rate among "screening-not-recommended" adults was 29.6%; the prevalence of diabetes and prediabetes were 0.4 and 10.2%, respectively.

conclusionsIn a nationally representative sample, 76% of adults met ADA screening criteria, of whom fewer than half reported screening. Limitations include cross-sectional design and screening self-report.

Indexed as

Nutrition SurveysAdultAge DistributionChi-Square DistributionCohort StudiesDatabases, FactualDiabetes MellitusFemaleHumansLogistic ModelsMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedMultivariate AnalysisPrediabetic StatePrevalence

Identifiers

PMID25533392
PMCPMC4395592

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.