Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35690771›Full record

ArticleJournal of translational medicine2022

Evaluation of the value of conventional and unconventional lipid parameters for predicting the risk of diabetes in a non-diabetic population.

Guotai Sheng, Maobin Kuang, Ruijuan Yang, Yanjia Zhong, Shuhua Zhang, Yang Zou

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of translational medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
12.3field-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

64 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 84 citations in OpenAlex.

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

4 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Guotai ShengDepartment of Cardiology, Jiangxi Provincial People's Hospital, Nanchang, 330006, Jiangxi, China.
Maobin KuangMedical College of Nanchang University, Nanchang, 330006, Jiangxi, China.
Ruijuan YangMedical College of Nanchang University, Nanchang, 330006, Jiangxi, China.
Yanjia ZhongDepartment of Endocrinology, Jiangxi Provincial People's Hospital, Nanchang, 330006, Jiangxi, China.
Shuhua ZhangJiangxi Provincial People's Hospital, Jiangxi Cardiovascular Research Institute, Nanchang, 330006, Jiangxi, China.
Yang ZouJiangxi Provincial People's Hospital, Jiangxi Cardiovascular Research Institute, Nanchang, 330006, Jiangxi, China. jxyxyzy@163.com.ORCID 0000-0002-9373-928X
Jiangxi Provincial People's Hospital · CNNanchang University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundConventional and unconventional lipid parameters are associated with diabetes risk, the comparative studies on lipid parameters for predicting future diabetes risk, however, are still extremely limited, and the value of conventional and unconventional lipid parameters in predicting future diabetes has not been evaluated. This study was designed to determine the predictive value of conventional and unconventional lipid parameters for the future development of diabetes.

methodsThe study was a longitudinal follow-up study of 15,464 participants with baseline normoglycemia. At baseline, conventional lipid parameters such as low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), triglyceride (TG), total cholesterol (TC), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) were measured/calculated, and unconventional lipid parameters such as non-HDL-C, remnant cholesterol (RC), LDL/HDL-C ratio, TG/HDL-C ratio, non-HDL/HDL-C ratio, TC/HDL-C ratio and RC/HDL-C ratio were calculated. Hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated by Cox proportional hazard regression adjusting for demographic and diabetes-related risk factors. The predictive value and threshold fluctuation intervals of baseline conventional and unconventional lipid parameters for future diabetes were evaluated by the time-dependent receiver operator characteristics (ROC) curve.

resultsThe incidence rate of diabetes was 3.93 per 1000 person-years during an average follow-up period of 6.13 years. In the baseline non-diabetic population, only TG and HDL-C among the conventional lipid parameters were associated with future diabetes risk, while all the unconventional lipid parameters except non-HDL-C were significantly associated with future diabetes risk. In contrast, unconventional lipid parameters reflected diabetes risk better than conventional lipid parameters, and RC/HDL-C ratio was the best lipid parameter to reflect the risk of diabetes (HR: 6.75, 95% CI 2.40-18.98). Sensitivity analysis further verified the robustness of this result. Also, time-dependent ROC curve analysis showed that RC, non-HDL/HDL-C ratio, and TC/HDL-C ratio were the best lipid parameters for predicting the risk of medium-and long-term diabetes.

conclusionsUnconventional lipid parameters generally outperform conventional lipid parameters in assessing and predicting future diabetes risk. It is suggested that unconventional lipid parameters should also be routinely evaluated in clinical practice.

Indexed as

Diabetes MellitusLipidsCholesterolCholesterol, HDLFollow-Up StudiesHumansLipoproteinsRisk FactorsTriglyceridesCholesterolCholesterol, HDLLipidsLipoproteinsTriglyceridesConventional lipid parametersDiabetesLipid ratiosPredictionUnconventional lipid parameters

Identifiers

PMID35690771
PMCPMC9188037
OpenAlexW4282926551

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.