Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31434217›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2019

Differences and Similarities in Diabetes Research between China and the USA.

Hong Fan, Sheetal Bhurke, Guizhen Jia, Fujian Song

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Hong FanDepartment of Social Medicine and Health Education, School of Public Health, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing 211166, China. fanhong@njmu.edu.cn.ORCID 0000-0002-1814-733X
Sheetal BhurkeNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre (NETSCC), University of Southampton Beta House, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5141-3388
Guizhen JiaNanjing Medical University, Nanjing 210008, China.
Fujian SongFaculty of Medicine & Health Science, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK. Fujian.Song@uea.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Diabetes mellitus is one of the major non-communicable diseases (NCD) with increasing prevalence in China. There is a lack of high-quality research focusing on prevention and management of diabetes in low and middle income countries (LMICs) compared to developed countries. This comparative study aims to describe the characteristics of diabetes research conducted in China and the USA. The study included 800 studies on diabetes mellitus from both countries. Compared with studies in the USA, studies in China were more likely to be laboratory-based primary research (50.5% versus 30.8%), more likely to use animal subjects (47% versus 27.5%), more likely to focused on risk factors (22.7% versus. 14.7%), more likely to be case-controlled studies (17.7% versus 10.0%), and more likely to evaluate pharmacological treatments (36.5% versus 20.7%). Further, compared with studies in the USA, studies in China were less likely to involve patients (42.7% versus 60.7%), less likely to be clinical trials (6.2% versus 14.5%), less likely to be cohort studies (8.8% versus. 26.0%), and less likely to evaluate disease management interventions (3.3% versus 13.3%). Clinical studies in China should be more patient-based to facilitate more effective control and management of diabetes.

Indexed as

Diabetes MellitusAnimalsBiomedical ResearchCase-Control StudiesChinaHumansNoncommunicable DiseasesRisk FactorsUnited StatesChinacomparative studydiabetes mellitusnon-communicable diseaseUSA

Identifiers

PMID31434217
PMCPMC6720953

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.