ArticleJournal of diabetes2024
Cardiovascular disease risk in early-onset vs late-onset type 2 diabetes in China: A population-based cross-sectional study.
Article in Journal of diabetes, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association between younger-onset type 2 diabetes and long-term risk of CVD events: a 34-year follow-up of the Da Qing Diabetes Prevention Study.Endocrine connections · 2026Article
- 10-year cardiovascular disease risk and its contributing factors in primary hyperparathyroidism.Endocrine · 2026Article
- Association of Left Atrium Remodeling With Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Asymptomatic Type 2 Diabetes Patients With Early Chronic Kidney Disease.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Chronic low-grade inflammation associated with higher risk and earlier onset of cardiometabolic multimorbidity in middle-aged and older adults: a population-based cohort study.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Cardiovascular disease risk in early-onset vs late-onset type 2 diabetes in China: A population-based cross-sectional study.Journal of diabetes · 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
12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study investigated the effects of early-onset type 2 diabetes (EOD) vs late-onset type 2 diabetes (LOD) on nonfatal cardiovascular diseases (CVD) in China.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional survey of 46 239 participants from 14 provinces in China from 2007 to 2008, selecting 4949 participants with type 2 diabetes for analysis. Participants were categorized as EOD (<40 years) or LOD (≥40 years) based on age at diabetes diagnosis. Sociodemographic and nonfatal CVD information was collected through an interviewer-assisted questionnaire and clinical examination. Logistic regression analysis was used to investigate the nonfatal CVD risk.
resultsOut of 4949 participants with type 2 diabetes, 390 (7.88%) had nonfatal CVD. Participants with EOD had a higher age-standardized prevalence of nonfatal CVD than those with LOD (11.4% vs 4.4%). Compared to LOD patients, EOD patients tended to be males and had a higher family history of diabetes, unhealthy lifestyle behaviors, and lower blood pressure levels. After adjustment for age and sex, EOD patients had a higher risk of nonfatal CVD than LOD patients (odds ratio [OR] 2.3, 95% CI 1.5-3.5). After further adjustment for diabetes duration, use of drugs, and other risk factors, the OR of nonfatal CVD was reduced but significant (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.1-2.9). Sensitivity analysis revealed that EOD patients with metabolic syndrome had an increased nonfatal CVD risk compared to LOD patients (OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.2-3.5).
conclusionsEOD patients are at increased risk of nonfatal CVD. Individualized intervention and management measures for EOD patients are necessary.
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.