SynthesisBMJ open diabetes research & care2024
Surrogate measures of first-phase insulin secretion versus reference methods intravenous glucose tolerance test and hyperglycemic clamp: a systematic review and meta-analyses.
Synthesis in BMJ open diabetes research & care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond Glucose-Rethinking Prediabetes for Precision Prevention.Diabetes care · 2026Review
- Sociodemographic Factors, Healthy Habits, and Quality of Life in Relation to Insulin Resistance Risk in a Large Cohort of Spanish Workers.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Understanding the association of intrapancreatic fat deposition with adiposity and components of metabolic syndrome in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
- Comparison of the predictive value of different non-insulin-based insulin resistance indices for acute kidney injury in patients with sepsis: a retrospective study.Frontiers in endocrinology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn this systematic review, we investigated the diagnostic accuracy of surrogate measures of insulin secretion based on fasting samples and the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). The first phase of insulin secretion was calculated using two gold standard methods; the hyperglycemic clamp (HGC) test and intravenous glucose tolerance test (IVGTT). RESEARCH DESIGN AND
methodsWe conducted searches in the PubMed, Cochrane Central, and Web of Science databases, the last of which was conducted at the end of June 2021. Studies were included that measured first-phase insulin secretion in adults using both a gold-standard reference method (either HGC or IVGTT) and one or more surrogate measures from either fasting samples, OGTT or a meal-tolerance test. QUADAS-2, a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies, was used for quality assessment. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to examine the correlation between first-phase measured with gold standard and surrogate methods.
resultsA total of 33 articles, encompassing 5362 individuals with normal glucose tolerance, pre-diabetes or type 2 diabetes, were included in our systematic review. Homeostatic model assessment (HOMA)-beta and Insulinogenic Index 30 (IGI(30)) were the surrogate measures validated in the largest number of studies (17 and 13, respectively). HOMA-beta's pooled correlation to the reference methods was 0.48 (95% CI 0.40 to 0.56) The pooled correlation of IGI to the reference methods was 0.61 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.68). The surrogate measures with the highest correlation to the reference methods were Kadowaki (0.67 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.73)) and Stumvoll's first-phase secretion (0.65 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.71)), both calculated from an OGTT.
conclusionsSurrogate measures from the first 30 min of an OGTT capture the first phase of insulin secretion and are a good choice for epidemiological studies. HOMA-beta has a moderate correlation to the reference methods but is not a measure of the first phase specifically. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: The meta-analysis was registered at PROSPERO (Id: CRD42020169064) before inclusion started.
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.