ArticleBMJ open2016
Glycosylated haemoglobin as a predictor of cardiovascular events and mortality: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- How does HbA1c predict mortality and readmission in patients with heart failure? A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis.Systematic reviews · 2023Article
- The Patient's Physiological Status at the Start Determines the Success of the Inpatient Cardiovascular Rehabilitation Program.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- RNA-seq driven expression and enrichment analysis to investigate CVD genes with associated phenotypes among high-risk heart failure patients.Human genomics · 2021Article
- Review
- Gold Nanostar Colorimetric Detection of Fructosyl Valine as a Potential Future Point of Care Biosensor Candidate for Glycated Haemoglobin Detection.Biosensors · 2019Article
- Genome-wide Profiling of Urinary Extracellular Vesicle microRNAs Associated With Diabetic Nephropathy in Type 1 Diabetes.Kidney international reports · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionGlycosylated haemoglobin level (HbA1c) is an indicator of the average blood glucose concentrations over the preceding 2-3 months and is used as a convenient and well-known biomarker in clinical practice. Currently, epidemiological evidence suggests that HbA1c level is an independent risk factor for cardiovascular events such as myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary heart disease and heart failure. This protocol aim is to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine relationships of HbA1c levels with cardiovascular outcomes and cause of death, and to analyse the range of HbA1c levels that is a predictor of cardiovascular disease and/or mortality based on data from published observational studies. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The search will be conducted using Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Web of Science databases from their inception. Observational studies written in Portuguese, Spanish or English will be included. The Quality In Prognosis Studies tool will be used to assess the risk of bias for the studies included in the systematic review or meta-analysis. HRs for cardiovascular outcomes and causes of death with 95% CIs will be determined as primary outcomes. Subgroup analyses will be performed based on cardiovascular outcomes, cause of death studied, and type of population included in the studies. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This systematic review will synthesise evidence on the potential of using HbA1c level as a prognostic marker for cardiovascular disease outcomes and/or mortality. The results will be disseminated by publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Ethics approval will not be needed because the data used for this systematic review will be obtained from published studies and there will be no concerns about privacy. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42015032552.
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.