ReviewCurrent diabetes reports2017
Can Cardiovascular Epidemiology and Clinical Trials Close the Risk Management Gap Between Diabetes and Prediabetes?
Review in Current diabetes reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of Prediabetes on Ventricular Repolarization Markers in Electrocardiography.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Therapeutics in Metabolic Diseases.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2023Article
- Regression From Prediabetes to Normal Glucose Regulation and Prevalence of Microvascular Disease in the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study (DPPOS).Diabetes care · 2019Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewWe reviewed published literature to determine the relationship between A1c and cardiovascular disease (CVD) and summarize the need and implications for CVD risk reduction with interventions, focusing in the prediabetic A1c range (<6.5%). RECENT
findingsStrong evidence supports a continuous relationship between A1c and CVD-even below the current levels of A1c-defined prediabetes and after adjustment for known risk factors for CVD. Clinical trials have demonstrated a reduction in CV morbidity and/or mortality when interventions are invoked in the prediabetic A1c range. Guidelines advocating CV risk factor management in prediabetes have not been widely adopted, subsequently leading to comparable coronary heart disease risk between people with prediabetes (HR = 1.9, 95% CI 1.7-2.1 vs normoglycemia) and diabetes itself (HR=2.0, 95% CI 1.8-2.2 vs no diabetes). This review highlights the missed opportunity to utilize multiple risk factor interventions to reduce CVD in high-risk people with prediabetes.
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.