ArticleFrontiers in clinical diabetes and healthcare2025
Validation of the IDF-DAR risk assessment tool for Ramadan fasting in patients with diabetes in primary care.
Article in Frontiers in clinical diabetes and healthcare, 2025. 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.
- Factors associated with hypoglycemic or hyperglycemic events during Ramadan among persons with diabetes in Qatar.BMJ open diabetes research & care · 2026Article
- Ramadan and Kidney Disease (RaK) risk assessment tool. Potential risk calculator for evaluating the risk of Ramadan fasting in chronic kidney disease patients.BMC nephrology · 2026Article
- Pre-Ramadan time-below-range stratifies the simulated pump basal-rate dose-response during Ramadan fasting: a five-policy paired virtual-patient study.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
- Safety and efficacy of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus fasting during Ramadan: a systematic review and meta-analysis.World journal of methodology · 2025Article
- Evolution of the risk concept and assessment tools for diabetes during Ramadan fasting: A narrative review.World journal of diabetes · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: In patients with diabetes intending to fast, Ramadan, risk assessment, and stratification are essential for an individualized treatment plan. It seems that the new IDF-DAR risk stratification tool (International Diabetes Federation - Diabetes and Ramadan Alliance) has become the primary tool in this setting. This study aims to validate this tool in the Abu Dhabi population. Method: The assessment was performed before Ramadan, followed by an evaluation of any significant outcome after Ramadan through tele-interview and an electronic medical records review. Patients were included if the attending physicians used the tool in the risk assessment of the patients within 6 weeks before Ramadan 1,444 (CE 2022) in the AHS healthcare center. Results: The study included 435 patients. Half (51.7%) were in the low-risk category of the IDF-DAR risk stratification tool, 28.5% were in the moderate-risk category, and 19.8% were in the higher-risk category. Of the total patients, 81.3% fasted during the entire Ramadan period and 18.7% attempted to fast. A total of 14 (3.8%) patients were admitted at least once, and 56 (12.9%) had at least one significant event, including admission to the hospital. Using univariable logistic regression, the occurrence of adverse events was significantly associated with more days not fasted, Conclusion: According to the IDF-DAR risk assessment, patients with diabetes in the low-risk category had a better outcome than those in the moderate- or high-risk categories regarding SAEs. Another independent risk factor is if the patient is frail, according to the FRAIL scoring.
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.