Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34392398›Full record

ReviewDiabetologia2021

The legacy effect in diabetes: are there long-term benefits?

Rachel Folz, Neda Laiteerapong

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Diabetologia, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing 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

30 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Cost-Effectiveness of Highly Effective Glucose-Lowering Agents: Do Current Practices Optimize Clinical and Economic Outcomes?Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

2 authors.

Rachel FolzDepartment of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Neda LaiteerapongDepartment of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. nlaiteer@medicine.bsd.uchicago.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-0124-4325

Funding

Research Design, Data, and Analytics CoreP30DK092949 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI ELBERT S. HUANG · 2011 to 2026
$10.0M
Predicting and Reducing Future Health Disparities for U.S. Adults with DiabetesR01MD013420 · NIMHD · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI LAITEERAPONG, NEDA · 2018 to 2021
$1.6M
NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK092949NIMHD NIH HHS R01 MD013420
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this narrative review, we summarise the evidence for and against the glycaemic legacy effect from the long-term follow-up of major diabetes trials and observational cohort studies. We provide a summary of the pathophysiological basis for the legacy effect and discuss some translational research. Results from trials of early diabetes and observational cohort studies suggest that a long-term effect of early glycaemic control exists; however, long-term follow-up from trials in participants with established diabetes is not supportive. Additionally, findings for the legacy effect are more conclusive for microvascular complications than macrovascular events. Overall, these results suggest that the glycaemic legacy effect is a long-term benefit (or risk) conferred to individuals in the early stages of diabetes and which is muted over time as individuals' vasculature changes and they develop complications from diabetes.

Indexed as

Glycemic ControlBlood GlucoseDiabetes Mellitus, Type 1Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2HumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicBlood GlucoseCardiovascular diseaseDiabetes mellitusDiabetic complicationsDiabetic nephropathiesDiabetic retinopathyGlycaemic controlReview

Identifiers

PMID34392398
PMCPMC9196952

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.