ArticleFrontiers in medicine2023
Medication use and contextual factors associated with meeting guideline-based glycemic levels in diabetes among a nationally representative sample.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Health risk behaviours, mental health and HbA1c: an overview of reviews of observational studies.BMJ open · 2025Pooled it
- 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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Based on the long-lasting diabetes management challenges in the United States, the objective was to examine glycemic levels among a nationally representative sample of people with diabetes stratified by prescribed antihyperglycemic treatment regimens and contextual factors. Methods: This serial cross-sectional study used United States population-based data from the 2015 to March 2020 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES). The study included non-pregnant adults (≥20 years old) with non-missing A1C and self-reported diabetes diagnosis from NHANES. Using A1C lab values, we dichotomized the outcome of glycemic levels into <7% versus ≥7% (meeting vs. not meeting guideline-based glycemic levels, respectively). We stratified the outcome by antihyperglycemic medication use and contextual factors (e.g., race/ethnicity, gender, chronic conditions, diet, healthcare utilization, insurance, etc.) and performed multivariable logistic regression analyses. Results: The 2042 adults with diabetes had a mean age of 60.63 (SE = 0.50), 55.26% (95% CI = 51.39-59.09) were male, and 51.82% (95% CI = 47.11-56.51) met guideline-based glycemic levels. Contextual factors associated with meeting guideline-based glycemic levels included reporting an "excellent" versus "poor" diet (aOR = 4.21, 95% CI = 1.92-9.25) and having no family history of diabetes (aOR = 1.43, 95% CI = 1.03-1.98). Contextual factors associated with lower odds of meeting guideline-based glycemic levels included taking insulin (aOR = 0.16, 95% CI = 0.10-0.26), taking metformin (aOR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.46-0.96), less frequent healthcare utilization [e.g., none vs. ≥4 times/year (aOR = 0.51, 95% CI = 0.27-0.96)], being uninsured (aOR = 0.51, 95% CI = 0.33-0.79), etc. Discussion: Meeting guideline-based glycemic levels was associated with medication use (taking vs. not taking respective antihyperglycemic medication classes) and contextual factors. The timely, population-based estimates can inform national efforts to optimize diabetes management.
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.