ArticleDiabetology & metabolic syndrome2023
Levels and correlates of risk factor control in diabetes mellitus -ELSA-Brasil.
Article in Diabetology & metabolic syndrome, 2023. 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.
- Association of sensory impairment severity and assistive device use with prevalent and incident motoric cognitive risk syndrome.BMC geriatrics · 2025Article
- Intersection of Gender-Race/Color and Glycemic Control in Diabetes in Nine Years of Follow-up of the ELSA-Brazil Cohort.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2025Article
- Cardiovascular Statistics - Brazil 2023.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2024Article
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 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundControl of glucose, blood pressure, cholesterol, and smoking improves the prognosis of individuals with diabetes mellitus. Our objective was to assess the level of control of these risk factors in Brazilian adults with known diabetes and evaluate correlates of target achievement.
methodsCross-sectional sample of the Brazilian Longitudinal Study of Adult Health, composed of participants reporting a previous diagnosis of diabetes or the use oof antidiabetic medication. We measured glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and LDL-cholesterol at a central laboratory and blood pressure following standardized protocols. We defined HbA1c < 7% as glucose control (target A); blood pressure < 140/90 mmHg (or < 130/80 mmHg in high cardiovascular risk) as blood pressure control (target B), and LDL-c < 100 mg/dl (or < 70 mg/dl in high risk) as lipid control (target C), according to the 2022 American Diabetes Association guidelines.
resultsAmong 2062 individuals with diabetes, 1364 (66.1%) reached target A, 1596 (77.4%) target B, and 1086 (52.7%) target C; only 590 (28.6%) achieved all three targets. When also considering a non-smoking target, those achieving all targets dropped to 555 (26.9%). Women (PR = 1.13; 95%CI 1.07-1.20), those aged ≥ 74 (PR = 1.20; 95%CI 1.08-1.34), and those with greater per capita income (e.g., greatest income PR = 1.26; 95%CI 1.10-1.45) were more likely to reach glucose control. Those black (PR = 0.91; 95%CI 0.83-1.00) or with a longer duration of diabetes (e.g., ≥ 10 years PR = 0.43; 95%CI 0.39-0.47) were less likely. Women (PR = 1.05; 95%CI 1.00-1.11) and those with private health insurance (PR = 1.15; 95%CI 1.07-1.23) were more likely to achieve two or more ABC targets; and those black (PR = 0.86; 95%CI 0.79-0.94) and with a longer duration of diabetes (e.g., > 10 years since diabetes diagnosis, PR = 0.68; 95%CI 0.63-0.73) less likely.
conclusionControl of ABC targets was poor, notably for LDL-c and especially when considering combined control. Indicators of a disadvantaged social situation were associated with less frequent control.
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.