Regression to Normal Glucose Regulation in American Indians and Alaska Natives of a Diabetes Prevention Program.

Abstract evidence1 comparisonAutomated source matching · not expert reviewed

Partial coverage · gaps are marked inside each comparison

Some results can be visualized; unassessed context remains visible.

Choose a comparison

1 comparisons · Each follows its own evidence.

What happened? What does this reported comparison show?

One comparison, followed all the way through

This comparison is not yet interpretable.

Its exact outcome or compared groups still need to be established from the source.

Follow the study

The study design is not ready to draw

Comparison-level assignment evidence has not been extracted.

Open the paper record

Relative comparison

hazard ratio

← Smaller hazard ratioLarger hazard ratio →

Reported statistic · comparison details unresolved0.28× 0.12 to 0.67×

0.1×0.25×0.5×No difference

Reported estimate95% confidence intervalEqual steps show equal ratios

The reported number can be shown, but its exact outcome or compared groups are unresolved. Its direction cannot be interpreted here.

A hazard ratio compares the rate of events among those still at risk over follow-up. It is not a ratio of the percentages in a people picture. The confidence interval describes statistical uncertainty under the model, not every possible source of error.

Paper abstract · Abstract

This picture is incomplete

The outcome name has not been resolved from the source.
The comparison labels have not both been resolved from the source.
The outcome and group labels are not all tied to this result quotation.

Paper abstract · Abstract

Read the source context

Comparison details unresolved.

The exact outcome or compared groups are not yet fully established. The source needs interpretation before this number can support a conclusion.

Read reported excerpt

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Data from participants enrolled from 2006 to 2009 in the Special Diabetes Program for Indians Diabetes Prevention Program with IGR at baseline and an oral glucose tolerance test at year 1 were analyzed ( RESULTS: Those who reverted to NGR at year 1 (38%) had lower diabetes risk than those with sustained IGR (adjusted hazard ratio 0.28, 95% CI 0.12-0.67).

Paper abstract · Abstract

Automated source matching has not been reviewed by a scientific expert. This comparison's assignment method is not established.

Keep the limits in view

Study-specific limitations have not been assessed

An empty limitations list does not mean the study has no limitations.

Paper abstract · Abstract

Inspect the source trail for this comparison

Paper abstract ↗ · Abstractabstract · Matched to source text; not expert scientific review
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Data from participants enrolled from 2006 to 2009 in the Special Diabetes Program for Indians Diabetes Prevention Program with IGR at baseline and an oral glucose tolerance test at year 1 were analyzed ( RESULTS: Those who reverted to NGR at year 1 (38%) had lower diabetes risk than those with sustained IGR (adjusted hazard ratio 0.28, 95% CI 0.12-0.67).