Evidence mapPaperPMID 41808269Full record

SynthesisDiabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association2026

Sex-specific differences in the prevalence of intermediate hyperglycaemia states: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Louise Cooper, Ian Porter, Claire Meek, Simon J Griffin, Amy Ahern

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Louise CooperInstitute of Metabolic Science Epidemiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Ian PorterHealth Services and Policy Research Group, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK.
Claire MeekLeicester Diabetes Centre and Leicester NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester General Hospital, Leicester, UK.
Simon J GriffinInstitute of Metabolic Science Epidemiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Amy AhernInstitute of Metabolic Science Epidemiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Funding

Medical Research CouncilNIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsTo evaluate the sex-specific prevalence of isolated impaired glucose tolerance, isolated impaired fasting glucose, combined impaired glucose tolerance and impaired fasting glucose and type 2 diabetes diagnosed by isolated glucose states.

methodsWe searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase and CINAHL from inception to 22.04.25. Title and abstract screening, full-text review, data extraction and risk of bias assessment (Hoy et al.) were conducted by two reviewers using pre-defined eligibility criteria. Sex-stratified prevalence and odds ratio for each intermediate hyperglycaemic state in women compared with men were pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis.

resultsWe identified 8 studies suitable for meta-analysis, including 52,256 participants (25,263 women). The pooled prevalences (95% CI) of isolated impaired glucose tolerance, isolated impaired fasting glucose (ADA thresholds) and combined impaired glucose tolerance in women were respectively 8% (7%,9%), 15% (12%,18%) and 7% (5%, 9%) and for men 5% (4%,7%), 21% (12%, 32%) and 7% (5%, 10%). Compared with men, women had higher odds of having isolated impaired glucose tolerance: 1.42 (1.23, 1.65), 0.65 (0.44, 0.96) lower odds of isolated impaired fasting glucose: 0.65 (0.44, 0.96) and similar odds of combined impaired glucose tolerance and impaired fasting glucose: 0.85 (0.46, 1.57). There was moderate certainty evidence for pooled prevalence estimates and high certainty evidence for comparisons of iIGT and iIFG between sexes.

conclusionsThere are sex-specific disparities in the prevalence of different isolated intermediate hyperglycaemic states, which may contribute to underdiagnosis and undertreatment in primary care and introduce ascertainment bias into research and policy.

Indexed as

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2Glucose IntoleranceHyperglycemiaBlood GlucoseFemaleHumansMalePrevalenceSex FactorsBlood Glucosediabetesdiagnosisintermediate hyperglycaemiascreening

Identifiers

PMID41808269
PMCPMC13380399

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.