ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2025
Comparison of cardiovascular risk assessment protocols and achievement of risk factor targets in patients with type 2 diabetes.
Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Compare the differences in the 10-year cardiovascular risk assessment results for patients with type 2 diabetes among various guidelines, as well as the attainment of target levels for primary cardiovascular risk factors. Method: This study is a retrospective, real-world study that included patients with type 2 diabetes who were hospitalized at the Second Affiliated Hospital of Hebei North University from August 2023 until October 2023.This study evaluated the 10-year cardiovascular risk in patients with type 2 diabetes, as well as the attainment of target levels for blood pressure, blood glucose, and lipid levels. Result: This study included a total of 200 hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes, with a median age of 62.5 (57, 67), among which 97 (48.5%)were male. According to the SCORE2-Diabetes model from the European Society of Cardiology's "2023 ESC Guidelines for the management of cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes", the assessment results were as follows:165 cases(82.5%) were classified as very high risk,25 cases(10%) as high risk,8 cases(4%) as medium risk, and 2 cases(1%) as low risk; According to the assessment method from the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists' "Comprehensive Management Algorithm for Type 2 Diabetes(2023 edition)", the assessment results were as follows:150 cases(75%) were classified as extreme risk, 48 cases(24%) as very high risk, and 2 cases(1%) as high risk; The assessment results using the method outlined in the "Guideline for the Prevention and Treatment of Diabetes Mellitus in China(2024 Edition)"by the Chinese Diabetes Society are as follows:149 cases(74.5%) are at extremely high risk, and 51 cases(25.5%) are at high risk. There is no statistically significant difference among the assessment results of the three methods(χ²=2.759, P=0.252).Based on the criteria in the aforementioned three guidelines, the achievement rates for the main cardiovascular risk factors were assessed, with rates of 1%, 0%, and 0% respectively. There is no statistically significant difference among these results(P=0.332). Conclusion: Although the methods for assessing 10-year cardiovascular risk and the criteria for achieving main cardiovascular risk factor targets differ among the three guidelines, there is no statistical difference in the assessment results and achievement rates among the 200 patients with type 2 diabetes.
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.