ArticlePloS one2015
Familial Aggregation between the 14th and 21st Century and Type 2 Diabetes Risk in an Isolated Dutch Population.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Spousal diabetes status as a risk factor for incident type 2 diabetes: a prospective cohort study and meta-analysis.Acta diabetologica · 2019Pooled it
- Loss of LMOD1 impairs smooth muscle cytocontractility and causes megacystis microcolon intestinal hypoperistalsis syndrome in humans and mice.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2017Article
- Triglyceride glucose-waist circumference, a novel and effective predictor of diabetes in first-degree relatives of type 2 diabetes patients: cross-sectional and prospective cohort study.Journal of translational medicine · 2016Article
- Correction: Familial Aggregation between the 14th and 21st Century and Type 2 Diabetes Risk in an Isolated Dutch Population.PloS one · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedCorrection: Familial Aggregation between the 14th and 21st Century and Type 2 Diabetes Risk in an Isolated Dutch Population.2015 · Kleefstra, Nanne [added]
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe development of type 2 diabetes results from an interaction of hereditary factors and environmental factors. This study aimed to investigate the contribution of interrelatedness to the risk of developing type 2 diabetes in an isolated Dutch population. MATERIALS AND
methodsA genealogical database from inhabitants living on the former island Urk between the 14th and 21st century was constructed. In a case-control study, effects of interrelatedness and the risk of type 2 diabetes were estimated with Kinship Coefficients (KCs). Relative risks in first, second, and third degree relatives and spouses of inhabitants with type 2 diabetes were compared to matched controls.
resultsPatients with type 2 diabetes were more interrelated, expressed by a higher KC compared to controls (7.2 vs. 5.2, p=0.001). First, second and third degree relatives had an increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Second degree relatives had a similar risk,1.7 (1.5-2.0) as third degree relatives,1.8 (1.5-2.2). Spouses of patients with diabetes had a 3.4 (2.7-4.4) higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes.
conclusionsInterrelatedness was higher among inhabitants with type 2 diabetes compared to controls. This differences extended beyond the nuclear family, thereby supporting the hypothesis that interrelatedness contributed to the development of type 2 diabetes on Urk. However, the size of this effect was small and the patterns of risk in first, second and third degree relatives suggested that factors other than interrelatedness were the main contributors to the development of type 2 diabetes on Urk.
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.