Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28831539›Full record

ArticleDiabetologia2017

Effect of screening for type 2 diabetes on risk of cardiovascular disease and mortality: a controlled trial among 139,075 individuals diagnosed with diabetes in Denmark between 2001 and 2009.

Rebecca K Simmons, Simon J Griffin, Torsten Lauritzen, Annelli Sandbæk

2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · hybridAbstract readControlled Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Article in Diabetologia, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 43 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
7.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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.

NCT04739254 suspendednot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

Magnetocardiography Endocrine Registry

TypeobservationalSponsorGenetesis Inc.Ran2020 to 2030Enrolled250ConditionsEndocrine DisorderArmsCardioFlux
NCT05609266 completednot on this map

Validation of Non-invasive Risk Models for Prediction of Incident Type 2 Diabetes in a Swedish Population

TypeobservationalSponsorUmeå UniversityRan1990 to 2020Enrolled115,642ConditionsType2diabetes
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

43 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 76 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Screening for type 2 diabetes mellitus.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Improving Diabetes Screening in the Primary Care Clinic.Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Rebecca K SimmonsDepartment of Public Health, Section of General Practice, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark. rks34@cam.ac.uk.
Simon J GriffinDepartment of Public Health, Section of General Practice, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Torsten LauritzenDepartment of Public Health, Section of General Practice, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Annelli SandbækDepartment of Public Health, Section of General Practice, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Aarhus University · DKMRC Epidemiology Unit · GBOdense University Hospital · DK

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_12015/4
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aims/hypothesisThere is continuing debate about the net benefits of population screening for type 2 diabetes. We compared the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality among incident cases of type 2 diabetes in a screened group with those in an unscreened group.

methodsIn this register-based non-randomised controlled trial, eligible individuals were all men and women aged 40-69 years without known diabetes, registered with a general practice in Denmark (n = 1,912,392). Between 2001 and 2006, 153,107 individuals registered with 181 practices participating in the Anglo-Danish-Dutch Study of Intensive Treatment in People with Screen-Detected Diabetes in Primary Care (ADDITION)-Denmark study were sent a diabetes-risk-score questionnaire. Individuals at moderate-to-high risk were invited to visit their family doctor for assessment of diabetes status and cardiovascular risk (screening group). The 1,759,285 individuals registered with all other practices in Denmark constituted the retrospectively constructed no-screening (control) group. In this post hoc analysis, we identified individuals from the screening and no-screening groups who were diagnosed with diabetes between 2001 and 2009 (n = 139,075), and compared risk of CVD and mortality in these groups between 2001 and 2012.

resultsIn the screening group, 27,177/153,107 (18%) individuals attended for screening, of whom 1533 were diagnosed with diabetes. Between 2001 and 2009, 13,992 people were newly diagnosed with diabetes in the screening group (including those diagnosed by screening) and 125,083 in the no-screening group. Between 2001 and 2012, the risks of CVD and mortality were lower among individuals with diabetes in the screening group compared with individuals with diabetes in the no-screening (control) group (CVD HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.80, 0.89; mortality HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.74, 0.84). CONCLUSIONS/

interpretationA single round of diabetes screening and cardiovascular risk assessment in middle-aged Danish adults in general practice was associated with a significant reduction in risk of all-cause mortality and CVD events in those diagnosed with diabetes.

Indexed as

AdultAgedBlood GlucoseCardiovascular DiseasesDenmarkDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2FemaleHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPrimary Health CareRisk FactorsBlood GlucoseCardiovascular diseaseGeneral practiceMortalityPopulationScreeningTrialType 2 diabetes

Identifiers

PMID28831539
PMCPMC6108415
OpenAlexW2749360885

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.