SynthesisFrontiers in endocrinology2025
Estimated glucose disposal rate and cardiovascular disease risk: a meta-analysis of cohort studies.
Synthesis in Frontiers in endocrinology, 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.
- Associations of Insulin Sensitivity with Risk of All-Cause and Cause-Specific Dementia: A Prospective Cohort Study.Molecular neurobiology · 2026Article
- Protecting Citizens, Enabling Prevention: A Framework for Responsible Dietary Supplement Use in Europe.Nutrients · 2026Article
- The predictive value of combined assessment of estimated glucose disposal rate and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio for cardiovascular disease risk: a nationwide cohort study.Frontiers in 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Insulin resistance (IR) is a key cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factor. The estimated glucose disposal rate (eGDR) is a reliable IR marker linked to CVD risk. This study is the first extensive meta-analysis of this correlation in a general population free from baseline CVD. Methods: We searched electronic databases such as PubMed, Web of Science and Embase for cohort studies reporting eGDR and CVD risk. Studies included adults without baseline CVD, measured eGDR at baseline, and reported hazard ratio (HR) [95% confidence interval (CI)]. The combined HR and its 95% CI were determined through the application of random or fixed effects models. Meta-regression with robust error was utilized to depict the nonlinear dose-response relationship. Results: Twelve cohort studies with 547,287 subjects were included, with follow-up durations ranging from 5.6 to 14.1 years. Participants with the highest eGDR category had a lower risk of CVD (HR: 0.58, 95% CI 0.53-0.63), stroke (HR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.56-0.69), and coronary heart disease (HR: 0.46, 95% CI: 0.25-0.83) compared with the lowest eGDR category. This aligns with the meta-analysis results, where eGDR as a continuous variable had HRs of 0.88 (95% CI: 0.85-0.91) for CVD, 0.84 (95% CI: 0.76-0.93) for stroke, and 0.85 (95% CI: 0.83-0.87) for coronary heart disease. Subgroup analyses revealed that sex, sample size, follow-up duration, and prediabetes/diabetes status did not significantly affect the results. Dose-response analysis indicated that there was a linear negative association of the eGDR with the risk of CVD (P Conclusions: The higher eGDR is associated with lower risk of CVD, stroke, and coronary heart disease in individuals without baseline CVD. However, the observational design and high heterogeneity across studies prevent causal inference.
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.