Evidence mapPaperPMID 34244332Full record

ArticleDiabetes care2021

Historical HbA

Marcus Lind, Henrik Imberg, Ruth L Coleman, Olle Nerman, Rury R Holman

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diabetes care, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 62 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
62citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
13.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

62 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 118 citations in OpenAlex.

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

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

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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Marcus LindInstitute of Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden marcus.lind@gu.se.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3796-9283
Henrik ImbergDepartment of Mathematical Sciences, Chalmers University of Technology and University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Ruth L ColemanDiabetes Trials Unit, Radcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, U.K.
Olle NermanDepartment of Mathematical Sciences, Chalmers University of Technology and University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Rury R HolmanDiabetes Trials Unit, Radcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, U.K.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1256-874X
Chalmers University of Technology · SEOxford Centre for Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism · GBNU Hospital Group · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveType 2 diabetes all-cause mortality (ACM) and myocardial infarction (MI) glycemic legacy effects have not been explained. We examined their relationships with prior individual HbA RESEARCH DESIGN AND

methodsTwenty-year ACM and MI hazard functions were estimated from diagnosis of type 2 diabetes in 3,802 UK Prospective Diabetes Study participants. Impact of HbA

resultsHazard ratios for a one percentage unit higher HbA

conclusionsThe glycemic legacy effects seen in type 2 diabetes are explained largely by historical HbA

Identifiers

PMID34244332
PMCPMC8740943
OpenAlexW3180546758

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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.