ArticleCMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne2025
Cardiovascular risk thresholds for intensifying primary care encounter frequency for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a target trial emulation.
Article in CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Markov Decision Process-Based Personalized Follow-Up Planning for Type 2 Diabetes: Retrospective Cohort Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDetermining optimal timing for intensifying the frequency of physician encounters for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) requires trade-offs between timely care and clinician burden. We aimed to investigate age-specific cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk thresholds used for intensifying encounter frequency in patients with T2DM in primary care.
methodsUsing population-based public electronic health records from the Hospital Authority Clinical Management System in Hong Kong, we used data from patients with a baseline 10-year CVD risk of lower than 20% and a regular follow-up interval of 4-6 months at public primary care clinics. We compared different CVD risk thresholds (> 20% v. 30%) at which to shorten follow-up intervals to 3 months or less. We investigated age-specific effects by categorizing patients into 4 age groups (< 50, 50-59, 60-69, and ≥ 70 yr). In the causal framework of the target trial emulation, we used a dynamic marginal structural model to estimate absolute risk differences for 5-year incidence of CVD, under the assumption of no unmeasured confounding.
resultsWe identified 44 813 patients. Compared with the risk threshold of 20%, adopting the threshold of 30% did not increase risk of overall CVD in patients younger than 50 years (absolute risk difference 0.2%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.6% to 1.0%]) and aged 50-59 years (absolute risk difference 0.7%, 95% CI -0.1% to 1.4%). However, we observed an increased risk in older patients, aged 60-69 years (absolute risk difference 1.5%, 95% CI 0.6% to 2.5%) and 70 years or older (absolute risk difference 2.7%, 95% CI 0.6% to 4.9%).
interpretationWhen adopting a less stringent CVD risk threshold of 30% to intensify encounter frequency, we found progressively increasing risks with age for 5-year CVD incidence, and age 60 years appears to be a point where the risk becomes pronounced. Our findings suggest that a less stringent threshold could be considered for patients with T2DM who are younger than 60 years but not for those older than 60 years.
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.