SynthesisBMJ open2022
Characteristics of participants who take up screening tests for diabetes and lipid disorders: a systematic review.
Synthesis 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, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Differences in screen-detected type 2 diabetes in two targeted community-based screening campaigns in Denmark.BMJ open diabetes research & care · 2026Article
- Improving Diabetes and Pre-Diabetes Detection in the UK: Insights From HbA1c Screening in an Acute Hospital's Emergency Department.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2025Article
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 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo perform a systematic review on the characteristics of participants who attended screening programmes with blood glucose tests, lipid profiles or a combination of them, respectively.
designSystematic review following the Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklist. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and Medline databases for English literature from 1 January 2000 to 1 April 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Original observational studies that reported baseline characteristics of apparently healthy adult participants screening for diabetes and lipid disorders were included in this review. DATA EXTRACTION: We examined their sociodemographic characteristics, including age, gender, body mass index (BMI) and lifestyle habits. The quality of the included articles was evaluated by the Appraisal of Cross-sectional Studies.
resultsA total of 33 articles involving 38 studies in 22 countries were included and analysed in this systematic review. Overall, there was a higher participation rate among subjects who were female in all screening modalities (female vs male: 46.6%-63.9% vs 36.1%-53.4% for diabetes screening; 48.8%-58.4% vs 41.6%-51.2% for lipid screening; and 36.4%-76.8% vs 23.2%-63.6% for screening offering both). Compared with the BMI standard from the WHO, participants in lipid screening had lower BMI (male: 23.8 kg/m
conclusionsWe identified that individuals from lower socioeconomic groups were less likely to take up programmes for diabetes and/or lipid screening in developed areas. These populations are also likely to be at higher risk of non-communicable diseases. Future studies should investigate the barriers and facilitators of screening among non-participants, where targeted interventions to enhance their screening uptake are warranted.
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.