Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33094622›Full record

ReviewPhysiological research2020

Insights into the physiology of C-peptide.

D Vejrazkova, M Vankova, P Lukasova, J Vcelak, B Bendlova

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Physiological research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. The dietary calcium-to-magnesium ratio and its association with glycemic control in type 2 diabetes: a cross-sectional study.Biometals : an international journal on the role of metal ions in biology, biochemistry, and medicine · 2026
    Article
  2. Role of Peptides in Skeletal Muscle Wasting: A Scoping Review.Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

D VejrazkovaDepartment of Molecular Endocrinology, Institute of Endocrinology, Prague, Czech Republic. dvejrazkova@endo.cz.
M Vankova
P Lukasova
J Vcelak
B Bendlova

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Current knowledge suggests a complex role of C-peptide in human physiology, but its mechanism of action is only partially understood. The effects of C-peptide appear to be variable depending on the target tissue, physiological environment, its combination with other bioactive molecules such as insulin, or depending on its concentration. It is apparent that C-peptide has therapeutic potential for the treatment of vascular and nervous damage caused by type 1 or late type 2 diabetes mellitus. The question remains whether the effect is mediated by the receptor, the existence of which is still uncertain, or whether an alternative non-receptor-mediated mechanism is responsible. The Institute of Endocrinology in Prague has been paying much attention to the issue of C-peptide and its metabolic effect since the 1980s. The RIA methodology of human C-peptide determination was introduced here and transferred to commercial production. By long-term monitoring of C-peptide oGTT-derived indices, the Institute has contributed to elucidating the pathophysiology of glucose tolerance disorders. This review summarizes the current knowledge of C-peptide physiology and highlights the contributions of the Institute of Endocrinology to this issue.

Indexed as

AnimalsC-PeptideDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2HumansInsulin ResistanceNervous System DiseasesVascular DiseasesC-Peptide

Identifiers

PMID33094622
PMCPMC8603725

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.