ArticleDiabetology & metabolic syndrome2024
A comparative study of cardiovascular risk stratification methods in type 1 diabetes mellitus patients.
Article in Diabetology & metabolic syndrome, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cardiovascular risk estimation using the steno type 1 risk engine in Brazilian individuals with type 1 diabetes: a multicenter cross-sectional study.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2026Article
- Phase angle and body composition in long-term type 1 diabetes in adults: a comparative study in a Brazilian public reference outpatient clinic.Diabetology & metabolic syndrome · 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
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen developed the Steno T1 Risk Engine (ST1RE) to predict cardiovascular events, encompassing fatal and nonfatal ischemic heart disease, ischemic stroke, heart failure, and peripheral arterial disease in type 1 diabetes mellitus(T1DM).The current study investigated the agreement between ST1RE and the Brazilian Society for Endocrinology and Metabology (SBEM) classification. Participants were included in the study if diagnosed with T1DM and had at least one outpatient visit in 2021. Patients with established cardiovascular disease and chronic kidney disease on dialysis were excluded. Clinical parameters were obtained from medical records, such as age, body mass index (BMI), blood pressure, physical activity, current smoking, microvascular target organ damage, levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, creatinine, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), and albuminuria.Overall, 92 patients (38 males and 53 females) with an age median (P25; P75) of 33 years (25.5;42.5), BMI of 24.8 + 4.1 kg/m2, and duration of diabetes (mean ± SD) of 23.4 + 9.5 years were evaluated. There were no differences considering the gender for most analyzed variables, but a higher proportion of women exhibited microvascular complications such as microalbuminuria, macroalbuminuria, and retinopathy. Our results show a weak agreement in the 10-year cardiovascular risk estimation between SBEM and ST1RE classifications. According to SBEM criteria, 72.8% of patients were considered high-risk, while only 15.2% of patients received the same classification using ST1RE. The dissimilarities between these two classifications were also evident when age and gender factors were compared. While 60% of patients under 35 years were classified as high risk according to SBEM criteria, only 1.8% received this stratification risk in the ST1RE classification.The results indicate a low agreement between the 10-year cardiovascular event risk classification by SBEM and the classification by ST1RE for type 1 diabetes patients without established cardiovascular disease.
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.