Cited by 159Diabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes Treatment and ManagementDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins

The relationship between glycemic variability and diabetic peripheral neuropathy in type 2 diabetes with well-controlled HbA1c

Open access
Xu, Feng, Zhao, Li-hua, Su, Jian-bin, Chen, Tong, Wang, Xue-qin, Chen, Jin-feng, Wu, Gang, Jin, Yan +1 more·2014·Diabetology & Metabolic Syndrome

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) is one of the most common microvascular complications of diabetes. Glycemic variability could be an independent risk factor for diabetes complications in addition to average glucose. Type 2 diabetes with well-controlled glycosylated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) may have different terms of glycemic variability and vascular complication consequences. The aim of the study is to investigate the relationship between glycemic variability and DPN in type 2 diabetes with well-controlled HbA1c (HbA1c < 7.0%). METHODS: 45 type 2 diabetes with well-controlled HbA1c(HbA1c < 7.0%) and with DPN (DM/DPN group) were recruited in the study, and 45 type 2 diabetes with well-controlled HbA1c and without DPN (DM/-DPN group) were set as controls. The two groups were also matched for age and diabetic duration. Blood pressure, body mass index(BMI), insulin sensitivity index (Matsuda index, ISI), total cholesterol (TC), triglyceride (TG), high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDLC), and low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDLC) were tested in the two groups. And all patients were monitored using the continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system for consecutive 72 hours. The multiple parameters of glycemic variability included the standard deviation of blood glucose (SDBG), mean of daily differences (MODD) and mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (MAGE). RESULTS: The DM/DPN group had a greater SDBG, MODD and MAGE, when compared to the DM/-DPN group (p < 0.05). BMI, TC, and LDLC of DM/DPN group were lower than those of DM/-DPN group (p < 0.05). The patients with hypoglycemia were comparable between the two groups (p > 0.05). Univariate analysis showed DPN was closely associated with BMI (OR 0.82, CI 0.72-0.94, p = 0.005), TC (OR 0.63, CI 0.42-0.93, p = 0.02), LDLC (OR 0.4, CI 0.20-0.80, p = 0.009), SDBG (OR 2.95, CI 1.55-5.61, p = 0.001), MODD (OR 4.38, CI 1.48-12.93, p = 0.008), MAGE (OR 2.18, CI 1.47-3.24, p < 0.001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that MAGE (OR 2.05, CI 1.36-3.09, p = 0.001) and BMI (OR 0.85, CI 0.73-0.99, p = 0.033) were significantly correlating with DPN. Glycemic variability, evaluated by MAGE, was the most significantly independent risk factor for DPN. CONCLUSIONS: There was a close relationship between glycemic variability evaluated by MAGE and DPN in type 2 diabetes with well-controlled HbA1c.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1758-5996-6-139

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • There is inconsistency in the relationship between glucose variability and diabetic peripheral neuropathy in the literature.

    “There is inconsistency in the relationship between glucose variability and DPN in the literature, and some research indicates that for type 2 DM, glucose variability may be regarded as a marker of beta-cell function rather than direct cause of DPN.37–39”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Xu, F., Zhao, L.-H., Su, J.-B., Chen, T., Wang, X.-Q., Chen, J.-F., Wu, G., Jin, Y., & Wang, X.-H.
Affiliations
Nantong University (CN)
Venue
Diabetology & Metabolic Syndrome
Published
2014-12
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
139-139
ISSN
1758-5996 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2157110135
Cited by
159
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 5
FWCI
6.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Diabetology & Metabolic Syndrome (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Keywords
glycemic variability, diabetic peripheral neuropathy, type 2 diabetes, HbA1c control, continuous glucose monitoring, mean amplitude of glycemic excursions, mean of daily differences, body mass index, total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, insulin sensitivity, hypoglycemia, microvascular complications, glycemic control

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review