Evidence mapPaperPMID 21709591Full record

Trial reportMenopause (New York, N.Y.)2011

Menopause and risk of diabetes in the Diabetes Prevention Program.

Catherine Kim, Sharon L Edelstein, Jill P Crandall, Dana Dabelea, Abbas E Kitabchi, Richard F Hamman, Maria G Montez, Leigh Perreault, Mary A Foulkes, Elizabeth Barrett-Connor and 1 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Menopause (New York, N.Y.), 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Diabetes and Menopause.Current diabetes reports · 2016
    Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Catherine KimDepartment of Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Sharon L Edelstein
Jill P Crandall
Dana Dabelea
Abbas E Kitabchi
Richard F Hamman
Maria G Montez
Leigh Perreault
Mary A Foulkes
Elizabeth Barrett-Connor
Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group

Funding

PRIMARY PREVENTION TRIAL--DATA COORDINATING CENTERU01DK048489 · GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · 1994 to 2005
$23.7M
Vector and Transgenic Mouse CoreP30DK017047 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · 1986 to 2025
$12.6M
Post DPP Followup StudyU01DK048406 · INDIANA UNIV-PURDUE UNIV AT INDIANAPOLIS · 1994 to 2005
$3.0M
Intramural NIH HHSNIDDK NIH HHS K23 DK071552NIDDK NIH HHS K23DK071552NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK017047NIDDK NIH HHS U01 DK048406NIDDK NIH HHS U01 DK048489NIDDK NIH HHS U01DK048489
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe study objectives were to examine the association between menopause status and diabetes risk among women with glucose intolerance and to determine if menopause status modifies response to diabetes prevention interventions.

methodsThe study population included women in premenopause (n = 708), women in natural postmenopause (n = 328), and women with bilateral oophorectomy (n = 201) in the Diabetes Prevention Program, a randomized placebo-controlled trial of lifestyle intervention and metformin among glucose-intolerant adults. Associations between menopause and diabetes risk were evaluated using Cox proportional hazard models that adjusted for demographic variables (age, race/ethnicity, family history of diabetes, history of gestational diabetes mellitus), waist circumference, insulin resistance, and corrected insulin response. Similar models were constructed after stratification by menopause type and hormone therapy use.

resultsAfter adjustment for age, there was no association between natural menopause or bilateral oophorectomy and diabetes risk. Differences by study arm were observed in women who reported bilateral oophorectomy. In the lifestyle arm, women with bilateral oophorectomy had a lower adjusted hazard for diabetes (hazard ratio [HR], 0.19; 95% CI, 0.04-0.94), although observations were too few to determine if this was independent of hormone therapy use. No significant differences were seen in the metformin (HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.63-2.64) or placebo arms (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 0.74-2.55).

conclusionsAmong women at high risk for diabetes, natural menopause was not associated with diabetes risk and did not affect response to diabetes prevention interventions. In the lifestyle intervention, bilateral oophorectomy was associated with a decreased diabetes risk.

Indexed as

Life StyleMenopauseAdultAnalysis of VarianceBody Mass IndexCombined Modality TherapyDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2FemaleHealth PromotionHumansHypoglycemic AgentsMetforminMiddle AgedPatient Education as TopicPrediabetic StateProportional Hazards ModelsHypoglycemic AgentsMetformin

Identifiers

PMID21709591
PMCPMC3500880

What Socratic holds

Texttitle and abstract
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.