Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28220465›Full record

ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2017

Assessing Cardiovascular Risk and Testing in Type 2 Diabetes.

Anum Saeed, Christie M Ballantyne

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current cardiology reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Women.Methodist DeBakey cardiovascular journal
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Anum SaeedSection of Cardiovascular Research, Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, 6565 Fannin St., M.S. A-601, Suite 656, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
Christie M BallantyneSection of Cardiovascular Research, Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, 6565 Fannin St., M.S. A-601, Suite 656, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. cmb@bcm.edu.
Baylor College of Medicine · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewType 2 diabetes confers approximately twofold-increased risk for cardiovascular disease. Early risk stratification of these patients may help reduce cardiovascular events. This review discusses the state of the art of risk factors, biomarkers, and subclinical disease parameters potentially useful in cardiovascular risk assessment in type 2 diabetes. RECENT

findingsScientific progress in the past decade has identified a spectrum of risk in diabetic individuals rather than categorizing diabetes as a coronary heart disease equivalent as previously done. Recent data on emerging biomarkers and diagnostic imaging, along with traditional risk factors, provide evidence to help inform individualized cardiovascular risk assessment. Comprehensive assessment of traditional risk factors, biomarkers, complications of diabetes, and subclinical atherosclerosis may help classify diabetic individuals as low, intermediate, or high risk for determining the intensity of lifestyle modification and pharmacotherapy. Further research may lead to a comprehensive pathway for cardiovascular disease risk assessment in diabetic patients.

Indexed as

AtherosclerosisBiomarkersCardiovascular DiseasesCoronary DiseaseDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Diabetic AngiopathiesHumansRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsBiomarkersCardiovascular diseaseCardiovascular riskCardiovascular testingDiabetes mellitus

Identifiers

PMID28220465
OpenAlexW2587841174

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.