Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42540109›Full record

ArticleBMJ nutrition, prevention & health2026

Predicting pre-diabetes progression: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Kate Meads, Pranav Machiraju, Yumeng Shi, Stephen Colagiuri

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ nutrition, prevention & health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

4 authors.

Kate MeadsThe University of Sydney Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7684-0474
Pranav MachirajuThe University of Sydney Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Yumeng ShiThe University of Sydney Charles Perkins Centre, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Stephen ColagiuriBoden Institute of Obesity, Nutrition and Exercise, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Pre-diabetes is a well-known risk factor for diabetes, a major contributor to morbidity and mortality globally. Identifying patients at highest risk of developing diabetes facilitates early intervention. There is no consensus on diagnostic criteria, with no single modality or range shown to be most predictive of progression to diabetes. Purpose: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine which single or combination biochemical test(s) and definition of pre-diabetes best predict progression to diabetes. Methods: Following primary screening of 11 980 papers from MEDLINE, Embase and Global Health, 40 original studies published between 2006 and 2024 looking at adults with pre-diabetes were included. Children, pregnant patient populations and groups with significant morbidity were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed with the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist. Results: Our meta-analysis demonstrated the highest risk of progression to diabetes in the impaired fasting glucose (IFG) 6.1-6.9 mmol/L group, with an HR of 9.0 (4.6 to 13.5). Descriptive statistics identified the combination of IFG 6.1-6.9 mmol/L + impaired glucose tolerance + HbA1c 6.0%-6.4% had the highest percent incidence of diabetes per year, at 15.2%. Generally, combination tests were associated with higher progression rates. Conclusions: Certain single and combination biochemical test combinations may allow better identification of patients with pre-diabetes likely to progress to diabetes. To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review evaluating all testing combinations of these categories in progression and comparing pre-diabetes states as defined by multiple guidelines. This study (PROSPERO CRD42022312640) did not receive funding.

Indexed as

Diabetes mellitusMetabolic syndrome

Identifiers

PMID42540109
PMCPMC13425127

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.