Evidence mapPaperPMID 25697494Full record

Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2015

Improving diabetes prevention with benefit based tailored treatment: risk based reanalysis of Diabetes Prevention Program.

Jeremy B Sussman, David M Kent, Jason P Nelson, Rodney A Hayward

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 65 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
65citing papers in PubMed
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

65 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

5 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Jeremy B SussmanDepartment of Veterans Affairs Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2800, USA Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, NCRC, 2800 Plymouth Road, Building 16/343E, Ann Arbor jeremysu@med.umich.edu.
David M KentPredictive Analytics and Comparative Effectiveness Center, Tufts Medical Center, 35 Kneeland Street, Boston, MA 02111, USA.
Jason P NelsonPredictive Analytics and Comparative Effectiveness Center, Tufts Medical Center, 35 Kneeland Street, Boston, MA 02111, USA.
Rodney A HaywardDepartment of Veterans Affairs Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2800, USA Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, NCRC, 2800 Plymouth Road, Building 16/343E, Ann Arbor RWJ Foundation Clinical Scholars Program, University of Michigan, 2800 Plymouth Road, NCRC B10-G016, Ann Arbor.

Funding

Pilot and Feasibility ProgramP30DK092926 · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · 2025 to 2025
$779k
NIAAA NIH HHS U01 AA022802NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK092926NINDS NIH HHS U01 NS086294
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine whether some participants in the Diabetes Prevention Program were more or less likely to benefit from metformin or a structured lifestyle modification program.

designPost hoc analysis of the Diabetes Prevention Program, a randomized controlled trial.

settingAmbulatory care patients.

participants3060 people without diabetes but with evidence of impaired glucose metabolism.

interventionIntervention groups received metformin or a lifestyle modification program with the goals of weight loss and physical activity.

main outcome measureDevelopment of diabetes, stratified by the risk of developing diabetes according to a diabetes risk prediction model.

resultsOf the 3081 participants with impaired glucose metabolism at baseline, 655 (21%) progressed to diabetes over a median 2.8 years' follow-up. The diabetes risk model had good discrimination (C statistic=0.73) and calibration. Although the lifestyle intervention provided a sixfold greater absolute risk reduction in the highest risk quarter than in the lowest risk quarter, patients in the lowest risk quarter still received substantial benefit (three year absolute risk reduction 4.9% v 28.3% in highest risk quarter; numbers needed to treat of 20.4 and 3.5, respectively). The benefit of metformin, however, was seen almost entirely in patients in the top quarter of risk of diabetes. No benefit was seen in the lowest risk quarter. Participants in the highest risk quarter averaged a 21.4% three year absolute risk reduction (number needed to treat 4.6).

conclusionsPatients at high risk of diabetes have substantial variation in their likelihood of receiving benefit from diabetes prevention treatments. Using this knowledge could decrease overtreatment and make prevention of diabetes far more efficient, effective, and patient centered, provided that decision making is based on an accurate risk prediction tool.

Indexed as

Primary PreventionQuality ImprovementBlood GlucoseDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Disease ProgressionFemaleHumansLife StyleMaleMetforminMiddle AgedRisk AssessmentBlood GlucoseMetformin

Identifiers

PMID25697494
PMCPMC4353279

What Socratic holds

Texttitle and abstract
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.