Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34059937›Full record

Observational studyDiabetologia2021

Comparison between data-driven clusters and models based on clinical features to predict outcomes in type 2 diabetes: nationwide observational study.

Moa Lugner, Soffia Gudbjörnsdottir, Naveed Sattar, Ann-Marie Svensson, Mervete Miftaraj, Katarina Eeg-Olofsson, Björn Eliasson, Stefan Franzén

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Diabetologia, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing 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

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

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

8 authors.

Moa LugnerInstitute of Medicine, University of Gothenburg, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden. Moa.lugner@gu.se.ORCID 0000-0002-1639-0213
Soffia GudbjörnsdottirInstitute of Medicine, University of Gothenburg, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Naveed SattarInstitute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Ann-Marie SvenssonInstitute of Medicine, University of Gothenburg, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Mervete MiftarajNational Diabetes Register, Centre of Registers, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Katarina Eeg-OlofssonNational Diabetes Register, Centre of Registers, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Björn EliassonInstitute of Medicine, University of Gothenburg, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Stefan FranzénInstitute of Medicine, University of Gothenburg, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aims/hypothesisResearch using data-driven cluster analysis has proposed five novel subgroups of diabetes based on six measured variables in individuals with newly diagnosed diabetes. Our aim was (1) to validate the existence of differing clusters within type 2 diabetes, and (2) to compare the cluster method with an alternative strategy based on traditional methods to predict diabetes outcomes.

methodsWe used data from the Swedish National Diabetes Register and included 114,231 individuals with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes. k-means clustering was used to identify clusters based on nine continuous variables (age at diagnosis, HbA

resultsThe elbow plot, with values of k ranging from 1 to 10, showed a smooth curve without any clear cut-off points, making the optimal value of k unclear. The appearance of the plot was very similar to the elbow plot made from a simulated dataset consisting only of one cluster. In prediction models for mortality, concordance was 0.63 (95% CI 0.63, 0.64) for two clusters, 0.66 (95% CI 0.65, 0.66) for four clusters, 0.77 (95% CI 0.76, 0.77) for the ordinary Cox model and 0.78 (95% CI 0.77, 0.78) for the Cox model with smoothing splines. In prediction models for CVD events, the concordance was 0.64 (95% CI 0.63, 0.65) for two clusters, 0.66 (95% CI 0.65, 0.67) for four clusters, 0.77 (95% CI 0.77, 0.78) for the ordinary Cox model and 0.78 (95% CI 0.77, 0.78) for the Cox model with splines for all variables. CONCLUSIONS/

interpretationThis nationwide observational study found no evidence supporting the existence of a specific number of distinct clusters within type 2 diabetes. The results from this study suggest that a prediction model approach using simple clinical features to predict risk of diabetes complications would be more useful than a cluster sub-stratification.

Indexed as

Cardiovascular DiseasesDiabetes ComplicationsDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Blood PressureCluster AnalysisHumansProportional Hazards ModelsRisk FactorsCardiovascular diseasesCluster analysisDiabetes complicationsDiabetes mellitus type 2EpidemiologyMortality

Identifiers

PMID34059937
PMCPMC8382658

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.