ArticleMetabolism open2020
Reproducibility of a prediabetes classification in a contemporary population.
Article in Metabolism open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevention of type 2 diabetes through prediabetes remission without weight loss.Nature medicine · 2025Trial
- 2. Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2026.Diabetes care · 2026Review
- 2. Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2025.Diabetes care · 2025Review
- The Impact of Zinc Supplementation on Hyperglycemia and Complications of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.Cureus · 2024Article
- Correlation between hyperlipidemia and serum vitamin D levels in an adult Chinese cohort.Frontiers in nutrition · 2024Article
- 2. Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2024.Diabetes care · 2024Review
- 2. Classification and Diagnosis of Diabetes: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2023.Diabetes care · 2023 · on this mapReview
- HbA1c Screening for Diabetes in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Worthwhile Test or a Pitfall?Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 11 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
aimsTo assess whether meeting both fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and HbA1c criteria for prediabetes in people at high risk indicates with near certainty the presence of dysglycemia on repeat testing.
methodsObservational study using data from Vitamin D and Type 2 Diabetes (D2d) study. HbA1c, FPG were measured at screening visit 1; FPG, HbA1c and 2 h plasma glucose (2hPG) measured at screening visit 2 (a median of 21 days later); participants classified as having normal glucose regulation (all 3 tests in normal range), prediabetes or diabetes (at least 1 of 3 tests in diabetes range). A predictive model was developed to estimate the probability of confirming dysglycemia and for detecting diabetes at screening visit 2 based on values of FPG and HbA1c at screening visit 1.
resultsOf 1271 participants who met both FPG and HbA1c criteria for prediabetes at screening visit 1, 98.6% exhibited dysglycemia (defined as prediabetes or diabetes) on repeat testing (84.5% were classified as having prediabetes, 14.1% were reclassified as having diabetes). Of those with diabetes, 62.6% were identified by 2hPG alone.
conclusionsCombined measurement of FPG and HbA1c is a reliable and reproducible measure to identify presence of dysglycemia among people at high risk. A prediction model is provided to help clinicians decide whether an oral glucose tolerance test will provide value in detecting diabetes based on the 2hPG criterion.
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.