ArticleBMJ open diabetes research & care2020
Caucasian and Asian difference in role of type 1 diabetes on large-for-gestational-age neonates.
Article in BMJ open diabetes research & care, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical characteristics and unique presentations of immune checkpoint inhibitor induced type 1 diabetes in Chinese patients from a single institution.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Shared and distinct genetics of pure type 1 diabetes and type 1 diabetes with celiac disease, homology in their auto-antigens and immune dysregulation states: a study from North India.Acta diabetologica · 2024Article
- A Systematic Approach to Treating Early Metabolic Disease and Prediabetes.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionRacial differences in the association between type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and large-for-gestational-age (LGA) neonates remain unclear. The objective of this study was to compare the effect of T1DM on LGA neonates between Caucasian and Asian women. RESEARCH DESIGN AND
methodsA population-based retrospective cohort study was conducted among Caucasian and Asian women who had prenatal screening and gave a singleton live birth in an Ontario hospital between April 2015 and March 2018. Multivariable log-binomial regression models were used to estimate the adjusted relative risks (aRRs) and 95% CIs of T1DM on LGA for Caucasian and Asian women. Relative contribution of T1DM to LGA was examined by multivariable logistic regression model, stratified by Caucasian and Asian women.
resultsA total of 232 503 women (69.4% Caucasians and 30.6% Asians) were included in the final analysis. The rate of T1DM was higher in Caucasians (0.5%) than in Asians (0.2%), and the rate of LGA neonates was also higher in Caucasians (11.0%) than in Asians (5.0%). The association between T1DM and LGA in Caucasians (aRR 4.18, 95% CI (3.84 to 4.55)) was more robust than that in Asians (aRR 2.11, 95% CI (1.24 to 3.59)). T1DM was the fourth strongest contributor to LGA in Caucasians, while T1DM was the seventh contributor to LGA in Asians.
conclusionsT1DM plays a more substantial role in LGA among Caucasians than Asians. Clinicians should be aware of the Caucasian-Asian differences of effects of T1DM on LGA when developing pregnancy management strategies.
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.