ReviewCurrent opinion in endocrinology, diabetes, and obesity2026
The evolution of C-peptide's role in diabetes care.
Review in Current opinion in endocrinology, diabetes, and obesity, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Low Serum C-Peptide and Albuminuria Severity in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Biomarkers in Clinical Medicine Research: A Literature Survey in the PubMed Database and a Critical Evaluation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Residual β-cell function is associated with continuous glucose monitoring metrics in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus.Frontiers in endocrinology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewDiabetes mellitus affects one in nine adults worldwide, with timely diagnosis and accurate classification being essential for patient management. C-peptide is an important biomarker in the diagnostic workup. As diabetes sub-typing and treatment options continue to evolve, this review will highlight the important aspects of C-peptide analysis and interpretation and additionally, evaluate its current and emerging clinical role. RECENT
findingsSeveral sample types and testing strategies such as fasting, random and stimulated C-peptide are available which are reviewed here. Random nonfasting C-peptide is convenient to perform in clinic and performs well compared to gold standard testing for classification of severe insulin deficiency and insulin dependence. C-peptide measurement may also be useful for classifying type 2 diabetes subtypes and in predicting response to treatment. Despite ongoing efforts towards standardization of C-peptide, variation still exists between analytical methods. SUMMARY: This review summarizes recent literature relating to preanalytical, analytical and clinical aspects of C-peptide testing. Future research in this area may build on the role of C-peptide in predicting glycaemic control, clinical complications and response to pharmacotherapy.
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.