ArticleAmerican journal of preventive cardiology2025
Composite cardiovascular risk factor control in US adults with diabetes and relation to social determinants of health: The
Article in American journal of preventive cardiology, 2025. 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.
- Dynamics of healthcare inequalities in type 2 diabetes mellitus across the COVID-19 pandemic: a real-world population-based study.BMC health services research · 2026Observational
- Article
- Cardio-Reno-Microvascular Phenotypes and Multifactorial Cardiometabolic Target Achievement in Type 2 Diabetes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Data are limited on composite cardiovascular risk factor control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). This study aims to identify disparities in cardiovascular risk factor control based on most recent recommendations and relationships to social determinants of health in a large-scale real-world cohort of US adults. Methods: We analyzed data from 88,416 participants with T2DM in the NIH Precision Medicine Initiative Results: The study revealed low risk factor control with only 27.7 % of participants achieving recommended levels for three or more risk factors (RFs) and 4.9 % for four or more RFs. Overall, while 81.0% were at target for HbA1c, only 37.9% were at target for BP and 10.4% for LDL-C. Notably, only 1.9 % and 6.9 % were at target for HbA1c, LDL-C, and BP together, based on current and prior recommendations, respectively. Significant disparities were observed across race/ethnicity, sex, and socioeconomic lines with 43.1 % of Asian participants at control for ≥3 RFs compared to 21.1 % of non-Hispanic black participants. In logistic regression analysis, factors such as higher income, higher educational attainment, and health insurance were associated with better RF control, while higher polysocial risk scores linked to poorer control. Conclusions: Despite some progress in managing individual CVD risk factors in T2DM, overall composite risk factor control remains poor, especially among underrepresented and socioeconomically disadvantaged groups. The findings highlight the necessity for integrated healthcare strategies that address both medical and social needs to improve control of CVD risk factors and outcomes in T2DM.
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.