The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Is Glycemic Control Improving in U.S. Adults?
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE—The purpose of this study was to examine whether glycemic control has improved in recent years among individuals with diagnosed diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—We examined trends in A1C levels for adults with diagnosed diabetes using three consecutive waves of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES): 1999–2000, 2001–2002, and 2003–2004. We estimated mean A1C levels and the proportion with A1C <7.0, <8.0, and <9.0%. We used multivariate regression to test whether A1C levels differed by NHANES wave after controlling for other factors. Multivariate dichotomous logistic regression and predictive margins were used to test whether the percentages of individuals with diabetes in selected A1C intervals differed by NHANES wave. RESULTS—Mean A1C levels among individuals with diagnosed diabetes declined from 7.82% in 1999–2000 to 7.47 and 7.18% in 2001–2002 and 2003–2004, respectively. After controlling for demographics and diabetes duration, A1C levels were 0.308 (P = 0.20) and 0.511 (P = 0.03) percentage points lower in 2001–2002 and 2003–2004, respectively, than in 1999–2000. The logistic results indicated corresponding improvements over time: the predictive margin for having A1C <7.0% increased from 37.0% in 1999–2000 to 49.7% in 2001–2002 and to 55.7% in 2003–2004. CONCLUSIONS—Glycemic control improved between 1999 and 2004. This trend may represent an important improvement in diabetes care and is encouraging for future reduction of diabetes-related complications.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Nathan, D. M., Buse, J. B., Davidson, M. B., Ferrannini, E., Holman, R. R., Sherwin, R., & Zinman, B. (2009) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/dc08-9025 · Cited by 3,834
Research works printed but not linked: 11
- The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group: The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 329: 977–986, 1993 · DOI · Paper page
- The Writing Team for the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications Research Group: Effect of intensive therapy on the microvascular complications of type 1 diabetes. JAMA 287:2563–2569, 2002 · DOI · Paper page
- American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists: American College of Endocrinology consensus statement on guidelines for glycemic control. Endocr Pract 8(Suppl. 1):5–11, 2002 · DOI
- Saaddine JB, Cadwell B, Gregg EW, Engelgau MM, Vinicor F, Imperatore G, Venkat Narayan KM: Improvements in diabetes processes of care and intermediate outcomes: United States, 1988–2002. Ann Intern Med 144:465–474, 2006 · DOI · Paper page
- Saydah SH, Fradkin J, Cowie CC: Poor control of risk factors for vascular disease among adults with previously diagnosed diabetes. JAMA 291:335–342, 2004 · DOI · Paper page
- Koro CE, Bowlin SJ, Bourgeois N, Fedder DO: Glycemic control from 1988 to 2000 among U.S. adults with diagnosed type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 27:17–20, 2004 · DOI · Paper page
- Graubard BI, Korn EL: Predictive margins. Biometrics 55:652–659, 1999 · DOI · Paper page
- Harris MI, Eastman RC, Cowie CC, Flegal KM, Eberhardt MS: Racial and ethnic differences in glycemic control of adults with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 22:403–408, 1999 · DOI · Paper page
- Stein AD, Courval JM, Lederman RI, Shea S: Reproducibility of responses to telephone interviews: demographic predictors of discordance in risk factor status. Am J Epidemiol 141:1097–1105, 1995 · DOI
- Bowlin SJ, Morrill BD, Nazfiger AN, Lewis C, Pearson TA: Reliability and changes in validity of self-reported cardiovascular disease risk factors using dual response: the behavioral risk factor survey. J Clin Epidemiol 49:511–517, 1996 · DOI · Paper page
- Stratton IM, Cull CA, Adler AI, Matthews DR, Neil HA, Holman RR: Additive effects of glycaemia and blood pressure exposure on risk of complications in type 2 diabetes: a prospective observational study (UKPDS 75). Diabetologia 49:1761–1769, 2006 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Standards of medical care in diabetes—2014
American Diabetes Association (2014) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/dc14-s014 · Cited by 4,572
Standards of medical care in diabetes—2013
American Diabetes Association (2013) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/dc13-s011 · Cited by 4,369
Cheung, N., Mitchell, P., & Wong, T. Y. (2010) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(09)62124-3 · Cited by 3,288
Standards of medical care in diabetes—2011
American Diabetes Association (2011) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/dc11-s011 · Cited by 2,880
Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2012
(2012) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/dc12-s011 · Cited by 2,240
Metadata
- Authors
- Hoerger, T. J., Segel, J. E., Gregg, E. W., & Saaddine, J. B.
- Venue
- Diabetes Care
- Publisher
- American Diabetes Association
- Published
- 2008-01-01
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 81-86
- ISSN
- 0149-5992 (ISSN-L)
- 1935-5548
- OpenAlex
- W2162037642
- Cited by
- 477
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 26.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Is Glycemic Control Improving in U.S. Adults? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2337/dc07-1572
- The paper
- Hoerger, T. J., Segel, J. E., Gregg, E. W., & Saaddine, J. B. (2008). Is Glycemic Control Improving in U.S. Adults? Diabetes Care. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc07-1572
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
