ArticlePloS one2024
Comparing glycemic traits in defining diabetes among rural Chinese older adults.
Article in PloS one, 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multiple Signaling Axes (TNF-α/IL1β/IL8, TLR4/MYD88/NF-κB, and TGF-β1/ROS) Associated With Coronary Collateral Circulation of Coronary Chronic Total Occlusion in Geriatric Patients.Mediators of inflammation · 2025Article
- Effects of DPP4 Inhibitors as Neuroprotective Drug on Cognitive Impairment in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.International journal of endocrinology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe sought to identify the optimal cut-off of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) for defining diabetes and to assess the agreements of fasting plasma glucose (FPG), fasting serum glucose (FSG), and HbA1c in defining diabetes among rural older adults in China.
methodsThis population-based cross-sectional study included 3547 participants (age ≥61 years, 57.8% women) from the Multidomain Interventions to Delay Dementia and Disability in Rural China from 2018-2019; of these, 3122 had no previously diagnosed diabetes. We identified the optimal cut-off of HbA1c against FPG ≥7.0 mmol/L for defining diabetes by using receiver operating characteristic curve and Youden index. The agreements of FPG, FSG, and HbA1c in defining diabetes were assessed using kappa statistics.
resultsAmong participants without previously diagnosed diabetes (n = 3122), the optimal HbA1c cut-off for defining diabetes was 6.5% (48 mmol/mol), with the sensitivity of 88.9%, specificity of 93.7%, and Youden index of 0.825. The correlation coefficients were 0.845 between FPG and FSG, 0.574 between FPG and HbA1c, and 0.529 between FSG and HbA1c in the total sample (n = 3547). The kappa statistic for defining diabetes was 0.962 between FSG and FPG, and 0.812 between HbA1c and FPG.
conclusionsThe optimal cut-off of HbA1c for diagnosing diabetes against FPG >7.0 mmol/L is ≥6.5% in Chinese rural-dwelling older adults. The agreement in defining diabetes using FPG, FSG, and HbA1c is nearly perfect. These results have relevant implications for diabetes research and clinical practice among older adults in China. CLINICAL
trial registrationThe protocol of MIND-China was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR, www.chictr.org.cn; registration no.: ChiCTR1800017758).
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.