ArticleBMJ open2022
Validation of type 2 diabetes subgroups by simple clinical parameters: a retrospective cohort study of NHANES data from 1999 to 2014.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Precision subclassification of type 2 diabetes: a systematic review.Communications medicine · 2023Article
- Cluster analysis of Thai patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus to predict disease progression and treatment outcomes : A prospective cohort study.BMJ open diabetes research & care · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo verify whether a simplified method based on age, body mass index (BMI) and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) is feasible in classifying patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), and evaluate the predictive ability of subgroups in several health and mortality outcomes.
designRetrospective cohort study.
settingThe National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999-2014 cycle.
participantsA total of 1960 participants with diabetes and the age at diagnosis greater than 30. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants with T2D were assigned to previously defined (by Ahlqvist) subgroups based on five variables: age, BMI, HbA1c, homoeostasis model assessment (HOMA) 2 estimates of β-cell function (HOMA2-B), and insulin resistance (HOMA2-IR), and on three variables: age, BMI and HbA1c. The classification performances of the three variables were evaluated based on 10-fold cross validation, with accuracy, precision and recall as evaluation criteria. Outcomes were assessed using logistic regression and Cox regression analysis.
resultsWithout HOMA measurements, it is difficult to identify severe insulin-resistant diabetes, but other subgroups can be ideally identified. There is no significant difference between the five variables and the three variables in the ability to predict the prevalence of poor cardiovascular health (CVH), chronic kidney disease, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and advanced liver fibrosis, and the risk of all-cause, cardiovascular disease and cancer-related mortality (p>0.05), except the prevalence of poor CVH in mild age-related diabetes (p<0.05).
conclusionsA simple classification based on age, BMI and HbA1c could be used to identify T2D with several health and mortality risks, which is accessible in most individuals with T2D. Due to its simplicity and practicality, more patients with T2D can benefit from subgroup specific treatment paradigms.
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.