Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29379608›Full record

ArticleBMJ open diabetes research & care2018

Trends in type 2 diabetes detection among adults in the USA, 1999-2014.

Linda S Geiss, Kai McKeever Bullard, Ralph Brinks, Annika Hoyer, Edward W Gregg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open diabetes research & care, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
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

5 authors.

Linda S GeissDivision of Diabetes Translation, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9523-267X
Kai McKeever BullardDivision of Diabetes Translation, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Ralph BrinksInstitute for Biometry and Epidemiology, German Diabetes Center, Dusseldorf, Germany.
Annika HoyerInstitute for Biometry and Epidemiology, German Diabetes Center, Dusseldorf, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0241-9951
Edward W GreggDivision of Diabetes Translation, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2381-6822

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo examine recent trends in type 2 diabetes detection among adults in the USA. RESEARCH DESIGN AND

methodsWe used data from the 1999-2014 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys on non-pregnant adults (aged ≥18 years) not reporting a diagnosis of diabetes (n=16 644 participants, averaging about 2000 for each 2-year cycle). We defined undiagnosed diabetes as a fasting plasma glucose ≥126 mg/dL or a hemoglobin A1c ≥6.5% (48 mmol/mol). We measured case detection as the probability of finding undiagnosed type 2 diabetes among the population without diagnosed diabetes. Linear regression models were used to examine trends overall and by sociodemographic characteristics (ie, age, gender, race/ethnicity, education, poverty-income ratio (PIR)).

resultsAge-standardized probability of finding undiagnosed type 2 diabetes was 3.0% (95% CI 2.1% to 4.2%) during 1999-2000 and 2.8% (2.2%-3.6%) during 2013-2014 (

conclusionsWe found little evidence of increased detection of undiagnosed type 2 diabetes among adults in the USA during the past 15 years. Although improvements were seen among NH white, older, and wealthy adults, these improvements were not large. As the scope of primary prevention efforts increases, case detection may improve.

Indexed as

diagnosisepidemiologysurvey researchtype 2 diabetes

Identifiers

PMID29379608
PMCPMC5783029

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.