Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35033175›Full record

ArticleDiabetology & metabolic syndrome2022

Creatinine-to-body weight ratio is a predictor of incident diabetes: a population-based retrospective cohort study.

Jiacheng He

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diabetology & metabolic syndrome, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

1 author.

Jiacheng HeEmergency Department, Nanhai District People's Hospital Of Foshan, Foshan, 528200, China. garxin@tom.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4945-249X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeCreatinine to body weight (Cre/BW) ratio is considered the independent risk factor for incident type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), but research on this relationship is limited. The relationship between the Cre/BW ratio and T2DM among Chinse individuals is still ambiguous. This study aimed to evaluate the correlation between the Cre/BW ratio and the risk of T2DM in the Chinese population.

methodsThis is a retrospective cohort study from a prospectively collected database. We included a total of 200,658 adults free of T2DM at baseline. The risk of incident T2DM according to Cre/BW ratio was estimated using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models, and a two-piece wise linear regression model was developed to find out the threshold effect.

resultsWith a median follow-up of 3.13 ± 0.94 years, a total of 4001 (1.99%) participants developed T2DM. Overall, there was an L-shaped relation of Cre/BW ratio with the risk of incident T2DM (P for non-linearity < 0.001). When the Cre/BW ratio (× 100) was less than 0.86, the risk of T2DM decreased significantly as the Cre/BW ratio increased [0.01 (0.00, 0.10), P < 0.001]. When the Cre/BW ratio (× 100) was between 0.86 and 1.36, the reduction in the risk of developing T2DM was not as significant as before [0.22 (0.12, 0.38), P < 0.001]. In contrast, when the Cre/BW ratio (× 100) was greater than 1.36, the reduction in T2DM incidence became significantly flatter than before [0.73 (0.29,1.8), P = 0.49].

conclusionThere was an L-shaped relation of Cre/BW ratio with incidence of T2DM in general Chinese adults. A negative curvilinear association between Cre/BW ratio and incident T2DM was present, with a saturation effect predicted at 0.86 and 1.36 of Cre/BW ratio (× 100).

Indexed as

Body weightCreatinineInsulin resistanceMuscle massSkeletal muscleType 2 diabetes

Identifiers

PMID35033175
PMCPMC8760680

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.