ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2022
A Comparison of Individuals with Diabetes and EMPA-REG Trial Participants: Exploring Aspects of External Validity.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is increasing use of sodium glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors to treat diabetes. Since trials apply specific entry and exclusion criteria to ensure internal validity, comparisons of trial populations with nationally representative samples can inform the applicability of study findings to practice.
objectiveTo compare individuals with diabetes from a nationally representative sample to patients who underwent randomization in the EMPA-REG trial. A secondary aim was to characterize what proportion of individuals prescribed an SGLT2 inhibitor in a nationally representative sample would have been included in the EMPA-REG trial.
designRetrospective cross-sectional study.
participantsAdults with diabetes who took part in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) between 2011-2014 (primary analysis corresponding to EMPA-REG enrollment) and 2015-2018 (secondary analysis corresponding to contemporary sample). MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was a comparison of demographic (age, sex, ethnicity, and pregnancy status), clinical (comorbidities and medication use), examination (weight, body mass index, and systolic and diastolic blood pressure), and laboratory (hgba1c, low- and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, and estimated glomerular filtration rate) characteristics of NHANES respondents versus EMPA-REG trial participants. The secondary outcome was the proportion of NHANES respondents who had been prescribed an SGLT2 inhibitor that would have met inclusion criteria for the EMPA-REG trial. KEY
resultsThere were 655 and 48 respondents, representing a weighted sample of 21,849,775 and 1,062,573 individuals, included in the primary and secondary analyses, respectively. Overall, 7.6% (95% CI 4.8-10.6%) of 2011-2014 NHANES respondents would have met all EMPA-REG trial inclusion criteria. NHANES respondents and EMPA-REG participants differed across demographic, clinical, examination, and laboratory domains. Of NHANES respondents from 2015 to 2018 who were prescribed an SGLT2 inhibitor, 10.6% (95% CI <1-24.7%) would have met all inclusion criteria for the EMPA-REG trial.
conclusionsThe EMPA-REG population differed from a nationally representative sample, which could affect generalizability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.