ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2023
Predictive Efficiency of Prediabetes for Diabetes Among Chinese Middle-Aged and Older Populations: a 5-Year National Prospective Cohort Study.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- A retrospective cohort study identifies differential diabetes progression among Han, Dai, and Yi groups in Yunnan.iScience · 2026Article
- Relationship Between Chronic Body Pain and Depression Among Middle-Aged and Elderly People in China: A Longitudinal Population-Based Study From CHARLS.Chronic diseases and translational medicine · 2025Article
- [Mediating role of insulin resistance in the relationship between hypertension and NAFLD and construction of its risk prediction model].Zhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLimited studies have explored the predictive efficiency of prediabetes based on two definitions for diabetes among Chinese middle-aged and older populations with prediabetes.
objectiveTo evaluate the predictive efficiency of prediabetes based on two definitions for diabetes and the clinical and public health benefit in Chinese middle-aged and older populations.
designA 5-year cohort study from the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study.
participantsA total of 5208 participants who had blood sample data at baseline in 2011. MAIN MEASURES: The exposure was prediabetes based on American Diabetes Association (ADA) and World Health Organization (WHO) definition. The main outcome was incident diabetes. The ability of prediabetes for predicting diabetes was assessed by sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to explore the associations between prediabetes and the 5-year risk of diabetes and all-cause mortality. KEY
resultsAmong those with prediabetes according to the ADA definition, only 426 (15.45%) with baseline prediabetes progressed to total diabetes, while according to the WHO definition, 208 (21.89%) progressed to total diabetes. In terms of the ability of predicting the incident total diabetes in 5 years, the ADA definition has a higher sensitivity than the WHO definition (70.76% versus 34.55%, P < 0.001), while the WHO definition has a higher specificity than the ADA definition (84.09% versus 49.35%, P < 0.001). Positive predictive values based on the two definitions were low (< 24%); negative predictive values were high (> 90%).
conclusionsNeither definition of prediabetes is robust for predicting diabetes development in Chineses middle-aged and older populations.
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.