ArticleScientific reports2024
Inaccurate diagnosis of diabetes type in youth: prevalence, characteristics, and implications.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tailoring interventions to close gaps in diabetes mellitus care.Nature reviews. Endocrinology · 2026Review
- Type 1 Diabetes Genetic Risk Scores: History, Application and Future Directions.Current diabetes reports · 2025Review
- Diabetic Ketoacidosis and Long-term Insulin Requirements in Youths with Newly Diagnosed Type 2 Diabetes During the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic.Endocrine practice : official journal of the American College of Endocrinology and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Classifying diabetes at diagnosis is crucial for disease management but increasingly difficult due to overlaps in characteristics between the commonly encountered diabetes types. We evaluated the prevalence and characteristics of youth with diabetes type that was unknown at diagnosis or was revised over time. We studied 2073 youth with new-onset diabetes (median age [IQR] = 11.4 [6.2] years; 50% male; 75% White, 21% Black, 4% other race; overall, 37% Hispanic) and compared youth with unknown versus known diabetes type, per pediatric endocrinologist diagnosis. In a longitudinal subcohort of patients with data for ≥ 3 years post-diabetes diagnosis (n = 1019), we compared youth with steady versus reclassified diabetes type. In the entire cohort, after adjustment for confounders, diabetes type was unknown in 62 youth (3%), associated with older age, negative IA-2 autoantibody, lower C-peptide, and no diabetic ketoacidosis (all, p < 0.05). In the longitudinal subcohort, diabetes type was reclassified in 35 youth (3.4%); this was not statistically associated with any single characteristic. In sum, among racially/ethnically diverse youth with diabetes, 6.4% had inaccurate diabetes classification at diagnosis. Further research is warranted to improve accurate diagnosis of pediatric diabetes type.
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.