ArticleBMC public health2025
Spatial bayesian modeling of diabetes mellitus (DM) risk in the United States.
Article in BMC public health, 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.
- The association between magnesium and diabetic retinopathy: a cross-sectional study.BMC ophthalmology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSpatial targeting of disease burden has long been instrumental to achieving optimal health resource allocation in the United States (US). Building on a previous study, the current research examined the spatial variation and hotspots of Diabetes Mellitus (DM) risk across the US.
methodsThe outcome variable was the number of DM cases per county acquired from the CDC-Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). Air pollution data (PM
resultsThe spatial distribution of diabetes mellitus (DM) risk was non-random (I = 0.428; p < 0.001). The elevated risk was concentrated in the US South, where multiple counties were classified within the highest standard deviation band, at or above 2.5 standard deviations above the national expected risk (RR = 1). After adjusting for spatial confounding, smoking increased the risk of DM by 8.3% (RR = 1.083, 95% CI: 1.07, 1.095), and obesity also increased DM risk by 0.7% (RR = 1.007; 95% CI: 1.000, 1.014). However, maximum temperature (RR = 0.998; 95% CI: 0.982, 1.013), NO
conclusionThe US South was found to be the region most at risk for the DM burden. Unlike previous research, our study also identified Florida and Maine as areas requiring equal attention. Although cross-sectional, the findings from this study provide essential information for targeted public health interventions. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.