The DOI matches its Crossref record; 253 of the 265 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 1 of the 333 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
10. Cardiovascular Disease and Risk Management: Standards of Care in Diabetes—2023
Open accessAbstract
The American Diabetes Association (ADA) “Standards of Care in Diabetes” includes the ADA’s current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA’s clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
229 Not checked yet · 14 Own interpretation · 8 No basis given · 1 Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Over a median follow-up of 16 months, those in the empagli fl ozin-treated group had a reduced risk of the primary outcome (HR 0.75 [95% CI 0.65 -0.86]; P < 0.001) and fewer total hospitalizations for heart failure (HR 0.70 [95% CI 0.58 -0.85]; P < 0.001).”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [200] Packer, 2020, Cardiovascular and renal outcomes with empagliflozin in heart failure, N Engl J Med source
The Secondary Outcomes section reports fewer total heart-failure hospitalizations with empagliflozin than with placebo (388 versus 553), with a hazard ratio of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.58–0.85; P<0.001). The Abstract also confirms the 16-month median follow-up and the cited primary-outcome hazard ratio of 0.75. (LLM, conf=0.95)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Rates of heart failure hospitalization have been improved in recent trials including people with type 2 diabetes, most of whom also had ASCVD, with sodium -glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors (8 -11).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [8] Zinman, 2015, Empagliflozin, cardiovascular outcomes, and mortality in type 2 diabetes, N Engl J Med source
- Not checked yetcites [9] Neal, 2017, Canagliflozin and cardiovascular and renal events in type 2 diabetes, N Engl J Med source
- Not checked yetcites [10] Fitchett, 2018, Effects of empagliflozin on risk for cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalization across the spectrum of heart failure risk in the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial, Eur Heart J source
- Not checked yetcites [11] McMurray, 2019, Dapagliflozin in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, N Engl J Med source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, large bene fi ts are seen when multiple cardiovascular risk factors are addressed simultaneously.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Common conditions coexisting with type 2 diabetes, such as hypertension and dyslipidemia, are risk factors for ASCVD, and diabetes itself confers independent risk.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Numerous studies have shown the ef fi cacy of controlling individual cardiovascular risk factors in preventing or slowing ASCVD in people with diabetes.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Common conditions coexisting with type 2 diabetes, such as hypertension and dyslipidemia, are risk factors for ASCVD, and diabetes itself confers independent risk.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“ASCVD morbidity and mortality have decreased (3,4).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [3] Buse, 2007, Primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases in people with diabetes mellitus: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association and the American Diabetes Association, Diabetes Care source
- Not checked yetcites [4] Gaede, 2008, Effect of a multifactorial intervention on mortality in type 2 diabetes, N Engl J Med source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“there is evidence that measures of 10-year CHD risk among U.S. adults with diabetes have improved signi fi cantly over the past decade (2)”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [2] Ali, 2013, Achievement of goals in U.S. diabetes care, 1999-2010, N Engl J Med source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Studies of individuals without diabetes found that home measurements may better correlate with ASCVD risk than of fi ce measurements (23,24).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [23] Bobrie, 2001, Is “isolated home” hypertension as opposed to “isolated office” hypertension a sign of greater cardiovascular risk?, Arch Intern Med source
- Not checked yetcites [24] Sega, 2005, Prognostic value of ambulatory and home blood pressures compared with office blood pressure in the general population: follow-up results from the Pressioni Arteriose Monitorate e Loro Associazioni (PAMELA) study, Circulation source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therapy that includes multiple, concurrent evidence-based approaches to care will provide complementary reduction in the risks of microvascular, kidney, neurologic, and cardiovascular complications.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Common conditions coexisting with type 2 diabetes, such as hypertension and dyslipidemia, are risk factors for ASCVD, and diabetes itself confers independent risk.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Home blood pressure self-monitoring and 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring may provide evidence of white coat hypertension, masked hypertension, or other discrepancies between of fi ce and ' true ' blood pressure (23,24).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [23] Bobrie, 2001, Is “isolated home” hypertension as opposed to “isolated office” hypertension a sign of greater cardiovascular risk?, Arch Intern Med source
- Not checked yetcites [24] Sega, 2005, Prognostic value of ambulatory and home blood pressures compared with office blood pressure in the general population: follow-up results from the Pressioni Arteriose Monitorate e Loro Associazioni (PAMELA) study, Circulation source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Recent studies have found that rates of incident heart failure hospitalization (adjusted for age and sex) were twofold higher in people with diabetes compared with those without (5,6).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [5] Cavender, 2015, Impact of diabetes mellitus on hospitalization for heart failure, cardiovascular events, and death: outcomes at 4 years from the Reduction of Atherothrombosis for Continued Health (REACH) Registry, Circulation source
- Not checked yetcites [6] McAllister, 2018, Incidence of hospitalization for heart failure and case-fatality among 3.25 million people with and without diabetes mellitus, Circulation source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 72
- Probably not a substantial claim. 9
- The quote only partly states this claim. 4
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Although some variability in calibration exists in various subgroups, including by sex, race, and diabetes, the overall risk prediction does not differ in those with or without diabetes (13 -16), validating the use of risk calculators in people with diabetes.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [13] Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration, 2014, Blood pressure-lowering treatment based on cardiovascular risk: a meta-analysis of individual patient data, Lancet source
- Not checked yetcites [14] Grundy, 2019, 2018 AHA/ACC/AACVPR/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/ADA/AGS/APhA/ASPC/NLA/PCNA guideline on the management of blood cholesterol: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines, J Am Coll Cardiol source
- Not checked yetcites [15] Muntner, 2014, Validation of the atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease Pooled Cohort risk equations, JAMA source
- Not checked yetcites [16] DeFilippis, 2017, Risk score overestimation: the impact of individual cardiovascular risk factors and preventive therapies on the performance of the American Heart Association-American College of Cardiology-Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease risk score in a modern multi-ethnic cohort, Eur Heart J
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Moreover, numerous studies have shown that antihypertensive therapy reduces ASCVD events, heart failure, and microvascular complications.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Hypertension is a major risk factor for both ASCVD and microvascular complications.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Recently, risk scores and other cardiovascular biomarkers have been developed for risk strati fi cation of secondary prevention patients (i.e., those who are already high risk because they have ASCVD) but are not yet in widespread use (17,18).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [17] Bohula, 2017, Atherothrombotic risk stratification and ezetimibe for secondary prevention, J Am Coll Cardiol source
- Not checked yetcites [18] Bohula, 2016, Atherothrombotic risk stratification and the efficacy and safety of vorapaxar in patients with stable ischemic heart disease and previous myocardial infarction, Circulation source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“A recent meta-analysis indicated that SGLT2 inhibitors reduce the risk of heart failure hospitalization, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality in people with (secondary prevention) and without (primary prevention) cardiovascular disease (12).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [12] Arnott, 2020, Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibition for the prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis, J Am Heart Assoc source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Hypertension is often a precursor of heart failure of either type, and ASCVD can coexist with either type (7), whereas prior myocardial infarction (MI) is often a major factor in HFrEF.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [7] Lam, 2018, Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: from mechanisms to therapies, Eur Heart J source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“these risk calculators do not account for the duration of diabetes or the presence of diabetes complications, such as albuminuria.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“An analysis of trials including people with type 2 diabetes and impaired glucose tolerance with achieved systolic blood pressures of < 135 mmHg in the intensive blood pressure treatment group and < 140 mmHg in the standard treatment group revealed a 10% reduction in all-cause mortality and a 17% reduction in stroke (30).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [30] Bangalore, 2011, Blood pressure targets in subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus/impaired fasting glucose: observations from traditional and bayesian random-effects meta-analyses of randomized trials, Circulation source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The cardiovascular event rates, de fi ned as fatal or nonfatal MI, fatal and nonfatal strokes, and all other cardiovascular events, were not signi fi cantly different between diastolic blood pressure targets ( # 90 mmHg, # 85 mmHg, and # 80 mmHg), although the lowest incidence of cardiovascular events occurred with an achieved diastolic blood pressure of 82 mmHg.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [37] Hansson, 1998, Effects of intensive blood-pressure lowering and low-dose aspirin in patients with hypertension: principal results of the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) randomised trial, Lancet source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The results have been interpreted to be generally consistent between both trials, but ACCORD BP was viewed as underpowered due to the composite primary end point being less sensitive to blood pressure regulation (33).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [33] Wright, 2015, A randomized trial of intensive versus standard blood-pressure control, N Engl J Med source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“More intensive reduction to < 130 mmHg was associated with a further reduction in stroke but not other cardiovascular events.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [30] Bangalore, 2011, Blood pressure targets in subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus/impaired fasting glucose: observations from traditional and bayesian random-effects meta-analyses of randomized trials, Circulation source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Hypotension occurred more frequently in the intensive treatment group (3.4%) compared with the standard treatment group (2.6%), without signi fi cant differences in other adverse events, including dizziness, syncope, or fractures.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [34] Zhang, 2021, Trial of intensive blood-pressure control in older patients with hypertension, N Engl J Med source
plainn = 8,511- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Moreover, home blood pressure monitoring may improve patient medication taking and thus help reduce cardiovascular risk (25).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [25] Omboni, 2013, Clinical usefulness and cost effectiveness of home blood pressure telemonitoring: meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies, J Hypertens source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Among trials with lower baseline or attained blood pressure, antihypertensive treatment reduced the risk of stroke, retinopathy, and albuminuria, but effects on other ASCVD outcomes and heart failure were not evident.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [19] Whelton, 2018, 2017 ACC/AHA/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/AGS/APhA/ASH/ASPC/NMA/PCNA guideline for the prevention, detection, evaluation, and management of high blood pressure in adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines, J Am Coll Cardiol source
- Not checked yetcites [26] Emdin, 2015, Blood pressure lowering in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis, JAMA source
- Not checked yetcites [27] Arguedas, 2013, Blood pressure targets for hypertension in people with diabetes mellitus, Cochrane Database Syst Rev
- Not checked yetcites [29] Brunström, 2016, Effect of antihypertensive treatment at different blood pressure levels in patients with diabetes mellitus: systematic review and meta-analyses, BMJ source
- Not checked yetcites [30] Bangalore, 2011, Blood pressure targets in subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus/impaired fasting glucose: observations from traditional and bayesian random-effects meta-analyses of randomized trials, Circulation source
- Not checked yetcites [31] Thomopoulos, 2017, Effects of blood-pressure-lowering treatment on outcome incidence in hypertension: 10 - Should blood pressure management differ in hypertensive patients with and without diabetes mellitus? Overview and meta-analyses of randomized trials, J Hypertens source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Randomized clinical trials have demonstrated unequivocally that treatment of hypertension reduces cardiovascular events as well as microvascular complications (26 -32).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [26] Emdin, 2015, Blood pressure lowering in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis, JAMA source
- Not checked yetcites [27] Arguedas, 2013, Blood pressure targets for hypertension in people with diabetes mellitus, Cochrane Database Syst Rev
- Not checked yetcites [28] Ettehad, 2016, Blood pressure lowering for prevention of cardiovascular disease and death: a systematic review and meta-analysis, Lancet source
- Not checked yetcites [29] Brunström, 2016, Effect of antihypertensive treatment at different blood pressure levels in patients with diabetes mellitus: systematic review and meta-analyses, BMJ source
- Not checked yetcites [30] Bangalore, 2011, Blood pressure targets in subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus/impaired fasting glucose: observations from traditional and bayesian random-effects meta-analyses of randomized trials, Circulation source
- Not checked yetcites [31] Thomopoulos, 2017, Effects of blood-pressure-lowering treatment on outcome incidence in hypertension: 10 - Should blood pressure management differ in hypertensive patients with and without diabetes mellitus? Overview and meta-analyses of randomized trials, J Hypertens source
- Not checked yetcites [32] Xie, 2016, Effects of intensive blood pressure lowering on cardiovascular and renal outcomes: updated systematic review and meta-analysis, Lancet source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Hypertension is a major risk factor for both ASCVD and microvascular complications.
In the paper
“While the ACCORD (Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes) blood pressure trial (ACCORD BP) did not con fi rm that targeting a systolic blood pressure of < 120 mmHg in people with diabetes results in decreased cardiovascular event rates, the prespecifi ed secondary outcome of stroke was reduced by 41% with intensive treatment (35).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [35] Cushman, 2010, Effects of intensive blood-pressure control in type 2 diabetes mellitus, N Engl J Med source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Of note, the ACCORD BP and SPRINT trials targeted a similar systolic blood pressure < 120 mmHg, but in contrast to SPRINT, the primary composite cardiovascular end point was nonsigni fi cantly reduced in ACCORD BP.”
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This approach acknowledges that the bene fi ts and risks of intensive blood pressure targets are uncertain and may vary across patients and is consistent with a patient-focused approach to care that values patient priorities and health care professional judgment (39).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [39] de Boer, 2018, Individualizing blood pressure targets for people with diabetes and hypertension: comparing the ADA and the ACC/AHA recommendations, JAMA source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) demonstrated that treatment to a target systolic blood pressure of < 120 mmHg decreases cardiovascular event rates by 25% in high-risk patients, although people with diabetes were excluded from this trial (33).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [33] Wright, 2015, A randomized trial of intensive versus standard blood-pressure control, N Engl J Med source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“One of the largest meta-analyses included 73,913 people with diabetes. Compared with a less tight blood pressure control, allocation to a tighter blood pressure control signi fi cantly reduced the risk of stroke by 31% but did not reduce the risk of MI (38).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [38] Reboldi, 2011, Effects of intensive blood pressure reduction on myocardial infarction and stroke in diabetes: a meta-analysis in 73,913 patients, J Hypertens source
plaindirectn = 73,913- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In this trial, 18.9% of patients in the intensive treatment arm and 19.4% in the standard treatment arm had a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [34] Zhang, 2021, Trial of intensive blood-pressure control in older patients with hypertension, N Engl J Med source
plainn = 8,511- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Lifestyle modi fi cation focusing on weight loss (if indicated); application of a Mediterranean or Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) eating pattern; reduction of saturated fat and trans fat; increase of dietary n-3 fatty acids, viscous fi ber, and plant stanols/sterols intake; and increased physical activity should be recommended to improve the lipid pro fi le and reduce the risk of d”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [83] Mehdi, 2009, Addition of angiotensin receptor blockade or mineralocorticoid antagonism to maximal angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition in diabetic nephropathy, J Am Soc Nephrol source
- Not checked yetcites [86] Eckel, 2013, 2013 AHA/ACC guideline on lifestyle management to reduce cardiovascular risk: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, Circulation
- Not checked yetcites [87] Arnett, 2019, 2019 ACC/AHA guideline on the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines, Circulation
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists also recommends that postpartum individuals with gestational hypertension, preeclampsia, and superimposed preeclampsia have their blood pressures observed for 72 h in the hospital and for 7 -10 days postpartum.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [51] Irgens, 2001, Long term mortality of mothers and fathers after pre-eclampsia: population based cohort study, BMJ source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Current evidence supports controlling blood pressure to 110 -135/85 mmHg to reduce the risk of accelerated maternal hypertension but also to minimize impairment of fetal growth.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The mean systolic blood pressure achieved in the more intensively treated group was 133.1 ± 0.5 mmHg, and the mean diastolic blood pressure achieved in that group was 85.3 ± 0.3 mmHg.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [46] Magee, 2015, Less-tight versus tight control of hypertension in pregnancy, N Engl J Med source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Lifestyle management is an important component of hypertension treatment because it lowers blood pressure, enhances the effectiveness of some antihypertensive medications, promotes other aspects of metabolic and vascular health, and generally leads to few adverse effects.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In CHIPS, targeting a diastolic blood pressure of 85 mmHg during pregnancy was associated with reduced likelihood of developing accelerated maternal hypertension and no demonstrable adverse outcome for infants compared with targeting a higher diastolic blood pressure.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [46] Magee, 2015, Less-tight versus tight control of hypertension in pregnancy, N Engl J Med source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Initial treatment for hypertension should include any of the drug classes demonstrated to reduce cardiovascular events in people with diabetes: ACE inhibitors (60,61), ARBs (60,61), thiazide-like diuretics (62), or dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (63).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [60] Catalá-López, 2016, Cardiovascular and renal outcomes of renin-angiotensin system blockade in adult patients with diabetes mellitus: a systematic review with network meta-analyses, PLoS Med source
- Not checked yetcites [61] Palmer, 2015, Comparative efficacy and safety of blood pressure-lowering agents in adults with diabetes and kidney disease: a network meta-analysis, Lancet source
- Not checked yetcites [62] Barzilay, 2004, Cardiovascular outcomes using doxazosin vs. chlorthalidone for the treatment of hypertension in older adults with and without glucose disorders: a report from the ALLHAT study, J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) source
- Not checked yetcites [63] Weber, 2010, Cardiovascular events during differing hypertension therapies in patients with diabetes, J Am Coll Cardiol source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Antihypertensive drugs known to be effective and safe in pregnancy include methyldopa, labetalol, and long-acting nifedipine, while hydralzine may be considered in the acute management of hypertension in pregnancy or severe preeclampsia (49).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [49] American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Task Force on Hypertension in Pregnancy, 2013, Hypertension in pregnancy. Report of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Task Force on Hypertension in Pregnancy, Obstet Gynecol
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“A similar approach is supported by the International Society for the Study of Hypertension in Pregnancy, which speci fi cally recommends use of antihypertensive therapy to maintain systolic blood pressure between 110 and 140 mmHg and diastolic blood pressure between 80 and 85 mmHg (47).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [47] Brown, 2018, Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: ISSHP classification, diagnosis, and management recommendations for international practice, Hypertension source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Treatment with ACE inhibitors or ARBs can cause AKI and hyperkalemia, while diuretics can cause AKI and either hypokalemia or hyperkalemia (depending on mechanism of action) (77,78).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [77] Nilsson, 2017, Incidence and determinants of hyperkalemia and hypokalemia in a large healthcare system, Int J Cardiol source
- Not checked yetcites [78] Bandak, 2017, Hyperkalemia after initiating renin-angiotensin system blockade: the Stockholm Creatinine Measurements (SCREAM) project, J Am Heart Assoc source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Detection and management of these abnormalities is important because AKI and hyperkalemia each increase the risks of cardiovascular events and death (79).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [79] Hughes-Austin, 2017, The relation of serum potassium concentration with cardiovascular events and mortality in community-living individuals, Clin J Am Soc Nephrol source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Intervention reduced risk of primary composite end point of major macrovascular and microvascular events (9%), death from any cause (14%), and death from CVD (18%)”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [36] Patel, 2007, Effects of a fixed combination of perindopril and indapamide on macrovascular and microvascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (the ADVANCE trial): a randomised controlled trial, Lancet source
plaindirectn = 11,140- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, the use of both ACE inhibitors and ARBs in combination, or the combination of an ACE inhibitor or ARB and a direct renin inhibitor, is contraindicated given the lack of added ASCVD bene fi t and increased rate of adverse events -namely, hyperkalemia, syncope, and acute kidney injury (AKI) (71 -73).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [71] Yusuf, 2008, Telmisartan, ramipril, or both in patients at high risk for vascular events, N Engl J Med source
- Not checked yetcites [72] Fried, 2013, Combined angiotensin inhibition for the treatment of diabetic nephropathy, N Engl J Med source
- Not checked yetcites [73] Makani, 2013, Efficacy and safety of dual blockade of the renin-angiotensin system: meta-analysis of randomised trials, BMJ source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Treatment with ACE inhibitors or ARBs can cause AKI and hyperkalemia, while diuretics can cause AKI and either hypokalemia or hyperkalemia (depending on mechanism of action) (77,78).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [77] Nilsson, 2017, Incidence and determinants of hyperkalemia and hypokalemia in a large healthcare system, Int J Cardiol source
- Not checked yetcites [78] Bandak, 2017, Hyperkalemia after initiating renin-angiotensin system blockade: the Stockholm Creatinine Measurements (SCREAM) project, J Am Heart Assoc source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Meta-analyses, including data from over 18,000 people with diabetes from 14 randomized trials of statin therapy (mean follow-up 4.3 years), demonstrate a 9% proportional reduction in all-cause mortality and 13% reduction in vascular mortality for each 1 mmol/L (39 mg/dL) reduction in LDL cholesterol (99).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [99] Kearney, 2008, Efficacy of cholesterol-lowering therapy in 18,686 people with diabetes in 14 randomised trials of statins: a meta-analysis, Lancet source
boosteddirectn = 18,000- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“These large trials included a signi fi cant number of participants with diabetes and prespeci fi ed analyses on cardiovascular outcomes in people with and without diabetes (109,111,112).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [109] Giugliano, 2018, Benefit of adding ezetimibe to statin therapy on cardiovascular outcomes and safety in patients with versus without diabetes mellitus: results from IMPROVE-IT (Improved Reduction of Outcomes: Vytorin Efficacy International Trial), Circulation source
- Not checked yetcites [111] Ray, 2019, Effects of alirocumab on cardiovascular and metabolic outcomes after acute coronary syndrome in patients with or without diabetes: a prespecified analysis of the ODYSSEY OUTCOMES randomised controlled trial, Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol source
- Not checked yetcites [112] Sabatine, 2017, Cardiovascular safety and efficacy of the PCSK9 inhibitor evolocumab in patients with and without diabetes and the effect of evolocumab on glycaemia and risk of new-onset diabetes: a prespecified analysis of the FOURIER randomised controlled trial, Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“During the median follow-up of 2.2 years, the composite outcome of cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, hospitalization for angina, or revascularization occurred in 11.3% vs. 9.8% of the placebo and evolocumab groups, respectively, representing a 15% relative risk reduction (P < 0.001).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [108] Sabatine, 2017, Evolocumab and clinical outcomes in patients with cardiovascular disease, N Engl J Med source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The cardiovascular bene fi t in this large meta-analysis did not depend on baseline LDL cholesterol levels and was linearly related to the LDL cholesterol reduction without a low threshold beyond which there was no bene fi t observed (99).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [99] Kearney, 2008, Efficacy of cholesterol-lowering therapy in 18,686 people with diabetes in 14 randomised trials of statins: a meta-analysis, Lancet source
plaincorrelationaln = 18,000- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In contrast, major bleeding was signi fi cantly increased from 3.2 to 4.1% in the aspirin group (rate ratio 1.29; P = 0.003), with most of the excess being gastrointestinal bleeding and other extracranial bleeding.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [144] ASCEND Study Collaborative Group, 2018, Effects of aspirin for primary prevention in persons with diabetes mellitus, N Engl J Med source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“As in those without diabetes, absolute reductions in ASCVD outcomes (CHD death and nonfatal MI) are greatest in people with high baseline ASCVD risk (known ASCVD and/or very high LDL cholesterol levels), but the overall benefi ts of statin therapy in people with diabetes at moderate or even low risk for ASCVD are convincing (100,101).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [100] Taylor, 2013, Statins for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, Cochrane Database Syst Rev
- Not checked yetcites [101] Carter, 2013, Risk of incident diabetes among patients treated with statins: population based study, BMJ source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Because cardiovascular event rates are increased in people with diabetes and established ASCVD, intensive therapy is indicated and has been shown to be of bene fi t in multiple large meta-analyses and randomized cardiovascular outcomes trials (91,99,105,107,108).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [91] Baigent, 2005, Efficacy and safety of cholesterol-lowering treatment: prospective meta-analysis of data from 90,056 participants in 14 randomised trials of statins, Lancet source
- Not checked yetcites [99] Kearney, 2008, Efficacy of cholesterol-lowering therapy in 18,686 people with diabetes in 14 randomised trials of statins: a meta-analysis, Lancet source
- Not checked yetcites [105] Cannon, 2015, Ezetimibe added to statin therapy after acute coronary syndromes, N Engl J Med source
- Not checked yetcites [107] Cannon, 2004, Intensive versus moderate lipid lowering with statins after acute coronary syndromes, N Engl J Med source
- Not checked yetcites [108] Sabatine, 2017, Evolocumab and clinical outcomes in patients with cardiovascular disease, N Engl J Med source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Accordingly, statins are the drugs of choice for LDL cholesterol lowering and cardioprotection.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Overall, the addition of ezetimibe led to a 6.4% relative bene fi t and a 2% absolute reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events (atherosclerotic cardiovascular events), with the degree of bene fi t being directly proportional to the change in LDL cholesterol, which was 70 mg/dL in the statin group on average and 54 mg/dL in the combination group (105).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [105] Cannon, 2015, Ezetimibe added to statin therapy after acute coronary syndromes, N Engl J Med source
plaindirectn = 18,144- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“There were no signi fi cant differences by sex, weight, or duration of diabetes or other baseline factors including ASCVD risk score.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [144] ASCEND Study Collaborative Group, 2018, Effects of aspirin for primary prevention in persons with diabetes mellitus, N Engl J Med source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Evolocumab therapy also signi fi cantly reduced all strokes (1.5% vs. 1.9%; HR 0.79 [95% CI 0.66 -0.95]; P = 0.01) and ischemic stroke (1.2% vs. 1.6%; HR 0.75 [95% CI 0.62 -0.92]; P = 0.005) in the total population, with fi ndings being consistent in individuals with or without a history of ischemic stroke at baseline (115).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [115] Giugliano, 2020, Stroke prevention with the PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9) inhibitor evolocumab added to statin in high-risk patients with stable atherosclerosis, Stroke source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The net clinical bene fi t (ischemic bene fi t vs. bleeding risk) was improved with ticagrelor therapy in the large prespecifi ed subgroup of patients with history of percutaneous coronary intervention, while no net benefi t was seen in patients without prior percutaneous coronary intervention (165).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [165] Bhatt, 2019, Ticagrelor in patients with diabetes and stable coronary artery disease with a history of previous percutaneous coronary intervention (THEMIS-PCI): a phase 3, placebo-controlled, randomised trial, Lancet source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“A trial suggested that more frequent dosing regimens of aspirin may reduce platelet reactivity in individuals with diabetes (160); however, these observations alone are insuf fi cient to empirically recommend that higher doses of aspirin be used in this group at this time.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [160] Bethel, 2016, Randomized controlled trial comparing impact on platelet reactivity of twice-daily with once-daily aspirin in people with type 2 diabetes, Diabet Med source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Another meta-analysis raised the hypothesis that low-dose aspirin ef fi cacy is reduced in those weighing > 70 kg (161); however, the ASCEND trial found bene fi t of low-dose aspirin in those in this weight range, which would thus not validate this suggested hypothesis (144).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [161] Rothwell, 2018, Effects of aspirin on risks of vascular events and cancer according to bodyweight and dose: analysis of individual patient data from randomised trials, Lancet source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In addition, the CAROLINA (Cardiovascular Outcome Study of Linagliptin Versus Glimepiride in Type 2 Diabetes) study demonstrated noninferiority between a DPP-4 inhibitor, linagliptin, and a sulfonylurea, glimepiride, on cardiovascular outcomes despite lower rates of hypoglycemia in the linagliptin treatment group (193).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [193] Rosenstock, 2019, Effect of linagliptin vs placebo on major cardiovascular events in adults with type 2 diabetes and high cardiovascular and renal risk: the CARMELINA randomized clinical trial, JAMA source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The combined analysis of the two trials found that canagli fl ozin signi fi cantly reduced the composite outcome of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke versus placebo (occurring in 26.9 vs. 31.5 participants per 1,000 patient-years; HR 0.86 [95% CI 0.75 -0.97]).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [9] Neal, 2017, Canagliflozin and cardiovascular and renal events in type 2 diabetes, N Engl J Med source
plaindirectn = 1,000- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Another meta-analysis raised the hypothesis that low-dose aspirin ef fi cacy is reduced in those weighing > 70 kg (161); however, the ASCEND trial found bene fi t of low-dose aspirin in those in this weight range, which would thus not validate this suggested hypothesis (144).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [144] ASCEND Study Collaborative Group, 2018, Effects of aspirin for primary prevention in persons with diabetes mellitus, N Engl J Med source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In the ADAPTABLE (Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-Centric Trial Assessing Benefi ts and Long-term Effectiveness) trial of individuals with established cardiovascular disease, 38% of whom had diabetes, there were no signi fi cant differences in cardiovascular events or major bleeding between patients assigned to 81 mg and those assigned to 325 mg of aspirin daily (156).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [156] Jones, 2021, Comparative effectiveness of aspirin dosing in cardiovascular disease, N Engl J Med source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, aspirin appears to have a modest effect on ischemic vascular events, with the absolute decrease in events depending on the underlying ASCVD risk.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Despite abnormal myocardial perfusion imaging in more than one in fi ve patients, cardiac outcomes were essentially equal (and very low) in screened versus unscreened patients.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [178] Young, 2009, Cardiac outcomes after screening for asymptomatic coronary artery disease in patients with type 2 diabetes: the DIAD study: a randomized controlled trial, JAMA source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Previously approved diabetes medications were not subject to the guidance.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The CANVAS trial that started in 2009 was partially unblinded prior to completion because of the need to fi le interim cardiovascular outcomes data for regulatory approval of the drug (195).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [195] Neal, 2017, Rationale, design and baseline characteristics of the CANagliflozin cardioVascular Assessment Study-Renal (CANVAS-R): A randomized, placebo-controlled trial, Diabetes Obes Metab source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Evidence supports use of either ticagrelor or clopidogrel if no percutaneous coronary intervention was performed and clopidogrel, ticagrelor , or prasugrel if a percutaneous coronary intervention was performed (162).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [162] Vandvik, 2012, Primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines, Chest source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In prospective studies, coronary artery calcium has been established as an independent predictor of future ASCVD events in people with diabetes and is consistently superior to both the UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) risk engine and the Framingham Risk Score in predicting risk in this population (175 -177).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [175] Elkeles, 2008, Coronary calcium measurement improves prediction of cardiovascular events in asymptomatic patients with type 2 diabetes: the PREDICT study, Eur Heart J source
- Not checked yetcites [176] Raggi, 2004, Prognostic value of coronary artery calcium screening in subjects with and without diabetes, J Am Coll Cardiol source
- Not checked yetcites [177] Anand, 2006, Risk stratification in uncomplicated type 2 diabetes: prospective evaluation of the combined use of coronary artery calcium imaging and selective myocardial perfusion scintigraphy, Eur Heart J source
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The effects of dapagli fl ozin therapy were similar in individuals with and without type 2 diabetes.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [197] Heerspink, 2020, Dapagliflozin in patients with chronic kidney disease, N Engl J Med source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
In the paper
“The trial was stopped early due to conclusive evidence of ef fi cacy identi fi ed during a prespeci fi ed interim analysis with no unexpected safety signals.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [194] Perkovic, 2019, Canagliflozin and renal outcomes in type 2 diabetes and nephropathy, N Engl J Med source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“No signi fi cant between-group differences were found for the outcome of all-cause mortality or for a composite renal outcome comprising the fi rst occurrence of long-term dialysis, renal transplantation, or a sustained reduction in eGFR.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [202] Bhatt, 2021, Sotagliflozin in patients with diabetes and chronic kidney disease, N Engl J Med source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In general, the adverse effects of sotagli fl ozin were similar to those seen with use of SGLT2 inhibitors, but they also included an increased rate of diarrhea potentially related to the inhibition of SGLT1.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [202] Bhatt, 2021, Sotagliflozin in patients with diabetes and chronic kidney disease, N Engl J Med source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The primary outcome of cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, or hospitalization for unstable angina occurred in 406 patients (13.4%) in the lixisenatide group vs. 399 (13.2%) in the placebo group (HR 1.2 [95% CI 0.89 -1.17]), which demonstrated the noninferiority of lixisenatide to placebo ( P < 0.001) but did not show superiority ( P = 0.81).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [208] Pfeffer, 2015, Lixisenatide in patients with type 2 diabetes and acute coronary syndrome, N Engl J Med source
plainn = 406- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“An increased risk for diabetic ketoacidosis was noted, however, with 2.2 and 0.2 events per 1,000 patient-years noted in the canagli fl ozin and placebo groups, respectively (HR 10.80 [95% CI 1.39 -83.65]) (194).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [194] Perkovic, 2019, Canagliflozin and renal outcomes in type 2 diabetes and nephropathy, N Engl J Med source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Ertugli fl ozin was not superior to placebo for the key secondary outcomes of death from cardiovascular causes or hospitalization for heart failure; death from cardiovascular causes; or the composite of death from renal causes, renal replacement therapy, or doubling of the serum creatinine level.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [201] Cannon, 2020, Cardiovascular outcomes with ertugliflozin in type 2 diabetes, N Engl J Med source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In terms of safety, no signi fi cant increase in lower-limb amputations, fractures, acute kidney injury, or hyperkalemia was noted for canaglifl ozin relative to placebo in CREDENCE.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [194] Perkovic, 2019, Canagliflozin and renal outcomes in type 2 diabetes and nephropathy, N Engl J Med source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“or hospitalization for heart failure (HR 0.71 [95% CI 0.55 -0.92]).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [197] Heerspink, 2020, Dapagliflozin in patients with chronic kidney disease, N Engl J Med source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
In the paper
“SCORED ended early due to a lack of funding; thus, changes to the prespeci fi ed primary end points were made prior to unblinding to accommodate a lower than anticipated number of end point events.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [202] Bhatt, 2021, Sotagliflozin in patients with diabetes and chronic kidney disease, N Engl J Med source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The incidence of acute pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer, medullary thyroid carcinoma, and serious adverse events did not differ signi fi cantly between the two groups.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [209] Holman, 2017, Effects of once-weekly exenatide on cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes, N Engl J Med source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The Exenatide Study of Cardiovascular Event Lowering (EXSCEL) trial also reported results with the once-weekly GLP-1 receptor agonist extended-release exenatide and found that major adverse cardiovascular events were numerically lower with use of extended-release exenatide compared with placebo, although this difference was not statistically signi fi cant (209).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [209] Holman, 2017, Effects of once-weekly exenatide on cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes, N Engl J Med source
plainn = 839- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Over a median follow-up of 1.8 years, efpeglenatide therapy reduced the risk of incident major adverse cardiovascular events by 27% and of a composite renal outcome event by 32%.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [214] Gerstein, 2021, Cardiovascular and renal outcomes with efpeglenatide in type 2 diabetes, N Engl J Med source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“EMPEROR-Preserved, a randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled trial of 5,988 adults with NYHA functional class I -IV chronic HFpEF (left ventricular ejection fraction > 40%), evaluated the ef fi cacy of empagli fl ozin 10 mg daily versus placebo on top of standard of care on the primary outcome of composite cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure (189).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [189] Anker, 2021, Empagliflozin in heart failure with a preserved ejection fraction, N Engl J Med source
plainn = 5,988- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In 3,730 patients with NYHA class II -IV heart failure with an ejection fraction of # 40%, treatment with empagli fl ozin reduced the combined risk of death, hospitalization for heart failure, or an emergent/urgent heart failure visit requiring intravenous treatment and reduced the total number of hospitalizations for heart failure requiring intensive care, a vasopressor or positive inotropic drug”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [229] Packer, 2021, Effect of empagliflozin on the clinical stability of patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction: the EMPEROR-Reduced trial, Circulation source
plaindirectn = 3,730- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
In the paper
“The fi ndings on the studied end points were consistent in both trials of heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction and in all fi ve trials combined.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [227] Vaduganathan, 2022, SGLT-2 inhibitors in patients with heart failure: a comprehensive meta-analysis of five randomised controlled trials, Lancet source
plainn = 21,947- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“SGLT2 inhibitors also reduce risk of heart failure hospitalization and progression of kidney disease in people with established ASCVD, multiple risk factors for ASCVD, or albuminuric kidney disease (212,213).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [212] Zelniker, 2019, SGLT2 inhibitors for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular and renal outcomes in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cardiovascular outcome trials, Lancet source
- Not checked yetcites [213] McGuire, 2021, Association of SGLT2 inhibitors with cardiovascular and kidney outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis, JAMA Cardiol source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“No signi fi cant between-group differences were found in the rates of cardiovascular death or all-cause mortality.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [228] Bhatt, 2021, Sotagliflozin in patients with diabetes and recent worsening heart failure, N Engl J Med source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Collectively, these studies indicate that SGLT2 inhibitors reduce the risk for heart failure hospitalization and cardiovascular death in a wide range of people with heart failure.”
hedgeddirectn = 21,947- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In summary, there are now numerous large randomized controlled trials reporting statistically signi fi cant reductions in cardiovascular events for three of the FDA-approved SGLT2 inhibitors (empagli fl ozin, canagli fl ozin, dapagli fl ozin, with lesser bene fi ts seen with ertugli fl ozin)”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [9] Neal, 2017, Canagliflozin and cardiovascular and renal events in type 2 diabetes, N Engl J Med source
- Not checked yetcites [194] Perkovic, 2019, Canagliflozin and renal outcomes in type 2 diabetes and nephropathy, N Engl J Med source
- Not checked yetcites [196] Wiviott, 2019, Dapagliflozin and cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes, N Engl J Med source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“However, the relatively small percentage of such patients enrolled (only 21% of participants had ejection fraction > 50%) and the early termination of the trial limited the ability to determine the effects of sotagli fl ozin in HFpEF speci fi cally.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [228] Bhatt, 2021, Sotagliflozin in patients with diabetes and recent worsening heart failure, N Engl J Med source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“At a median follow-up of 9 months, the rate of primary end point events (the total number of cardiovascular deaths and hospitalizations and urgent visits for heart failure) was lower in the sotaglifl ozin group than in the placebo group (51.0 vs. 76.3; HR 0.67 [95% CI 0.52 -0.85]; P < 0.001).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [228] Bhatt, 2021, Sotagliflozin in patients with diabetes and recent worsening heart failure, N Engl J Med source
plaindirectn = 1,222- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
In the paper
“Additional data from the CREDENCE trial with canagli fl ozin showed a 39% reduction in hospitalization for heart failure, and 31% reduction in the composite of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure, in a diabetic kidney disease population with albuminuria (UACR > 300 to 5,000 mg/g) (194).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [194] Perkovic, 2019, Canagliflozin and renal outcomes in type 2 diabetes and nephropathy, N Engl J Med source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Similarly, in CANVAS and DECLARE-TIMI 58, there were 33% and 27% reductions in hospitalization for heart failure, respectively, with SGLT2 inhibitor use versus placebo (9,196).”
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“As discussed in detail in Section 11, ' Chronic Kidney Disease and Risk Management, ' people with diabetes are at an increased risk for CKD, which increases cardiovascular risk (232).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [232] Gansevoort, 2013, Chronic kidney disease and cardiovascular risk: epidemiology, mechanisms, and prevention, Lancet source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“A prespeci fi ed subgroup analysis from FIGARO-DKD further revealed that in patients without symptomatic HFrEF, fi nerenone reduces the risk for new-onset heart failure and improves heart failure outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes and CKD (187).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [187] Filippatos, 2022, Finerenone reduces risk of incident heart failure in patients with chronic kidney disease and type 2 diabetes: analyses from the FIGARO-DKD trial, Circulation source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
Common conditions coexisting with type 2 diabetes, such as hypertension and dyslipidemia, are risk factors for ASCVD, and diabetes itself confers independent risk.
“Common conditions coexisting with type 2 diabetes (e.g., hypertension and dyslipidemia) are clear risk factors for ASCVD, and diabetes itself confers independent risk.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The majority of evidence supporting interventions to reduce cardiovascular risk in diabetes comes from trials of people with type 2 diabetes.
“Notably, the majority of evidence supporting interventions to reduce cardiovascular risk in diabetes comes from trials of people with type 2 diabetes.”
The paper relies on this without support.
No randomized trials have been specifically designed to assess the impact of cardiovascular risk reduction strategies in people with type 1 diabetes.
“No randomized trials have been speci fi cally designed to assess the impact of cardiovascular risk reduction strategies in people with type 1 diabetes.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Hypertension is common among people with either type 1 or type 2 diabetes.
“Hypertension is common among people with either type 1 or type 2 diabetes.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Hypertension is a major risk factor for both ASCVD and microvascular complications.
“Hypertension is a major risk factor for both ASCVD and microvascular complications.”
The paper relies on this without support.
In the absence of albuminuria, the risk of progressive kidney disease is low.
“In the absence of albuminuria, risk of progressive kidney disease is low, and ACE inhibitors and ARBs have not been found to afford superior cardioprotection when compared with thiazide-like diuretics or dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (68).”
The paper relies on this without support.
Multiple-drug therapy is often required to achieve blood pressure targets, particularly in diabetic kidney disease.
“Multiple-drug therapy is often required to achieve blood pressure targets ( Fig. 10.2 ), particularly in the setting of diabetic kidney disease.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Adding a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist to a regimen including an ACE inhibitor or ARB may increase the risk for hyperkalemia.
“However, adding a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist to a regimen including an ACE inhibitor or ARB may increase the risk for hyperkalemia, emphasizing the importance of regular monitoring for serum creatinine and potassium in these patients, and long-term outcome studies are needed to better evaluate the role of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists in blood pressure management.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Glycemic control may beneficially modify plasma lipid levels, particularly in patients with very high triglycerides and poor glycemic control.
“Glycemic control may also bene fi cially modify plasma lipid levels, particularly in patients with very high triglycerides and poor glycemic control.”
The paper relies on this without support.
People with type 2 diabetes have an increased prevalence of lipid abnormalities, contributing to their high risk of ASCVD.
“People with type 2 diabetes have an increased prevalence of lipid abnormalities, contributing to their high risk of ASCVD.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Cardiovascular risk is enhanced in people with diabetes.
“Since cardiovascular risk is enhanced in people with diabetes, as noted above, patients who also have multiple other coronary risk factors have increased risk, equivalent to that of those with ASCVD.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Patients with diabetes and multiple other coronary risk factors have increased risk equivalent to that of those with ASCVD.
“Since cardiovascular risk is enhanced in people with diabetes, as noted above, patients who also have multiple other coronary risk factors have increased risk, equivalent to that of those with ASCVD.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Patients under 40 years of age have lower 10-year cardiovascular risk but high lifetime risk of cardiovascular disease and events.
“Patients < 40 years of age have lower risk of developing a cardiovascular event over a 10-year horizon; however, their lifetime risk of developing cardiovascular disease and suffering an MI, stroke, or cardiovascular death is high.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Aspirin is associated with Reye syndrome in people younger than 21 years, which makes its use generally contraindicated in that age group.
“Aspirin use in patients aged < 21 years is generally contraindicated due to the associated risk of Reye syndrome.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Platelet function is altered in people with diabetes.
“Although platelets from people with diabetes have altered function, it is unclear what, if any, effect that fi nding has on the required dose of aspirin for cardioprotective effects in people with diabetes.”
The paper relies on this without support.
In clinical trials of people with diabetes, average daily aspirin doses ranged from 50 to 650 mg, mostly 100-325 mg/day.
“Average daily dosages used in most clinical trials involving people with diabetes ranged from 50 mg to 650 mg but were mostly in the range of 100 -325 mg/day.”
The paper relies on this without support.
No randomized trial of metformin therapy has been conducted in people with heart failure.
“however, no randomized trial of metformin therapy has been conducted in people with heart failure.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Most patients enrolled in the relevant trials were receiving metformin at baseline as glucose-lowering therapy.
“' Most patients enrolled in the relevant trials were on metformin at baseline as glucose-lowering therapy.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Peripheral artery disease is assumed to be atherosclerotic in origin.
“*ASCVD is defined as a history of an acute coronary syndrome or MI, stable or unstable angina, coronary heart disease with or without revascularization, other arterial revascularization, stroke, or peripheral artery disease assumed to be atherosclerotic in origin.”
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“and current guidelines recommend the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists in patients with diabetes who need cardiovascular risk reduction, weight management, or both. 38,39”
From Semaglutide and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Obesity without Diabetes (2023) · cites this paper as [38]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Randomized Controlled Trials of Intensive Versus Standard Blood Pressure Control · p. 4
“The mean achieved systolic blood pressures were 119 mmHg and 133 mmHg in the intensive versus standard group, respectively.”
§ Individualization of Treatment Targets · p. 5
“Achieved (mean) SBP/DBP: 135/70.5 mmHg”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ GLP-1 Receptor Agonist Trials · p. 24
“in 9,990 people with type 2 diabetes”
§ Recommendations · p. 17
“REWIND (207) ( n = 9,901)”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ GLP-1 Receptor Agonist Trials · p. 24
“HR 1.2”
§ GLP-1 Receptor Agonist Trials · p. 24
“95% CI 0.89 -1.17”
Citations
Cites
Empagliflozin, Cardiovascular Outcomes, and Mortality in Type 2 Diabetes
Zinman, B., Wanner, C., Lachin, J. M., Fitchett, D., Bluhmki, E., Hantel, S., Mattheus, M., Devins, T., Johansen, O. E., Woerle, H. J., et al. (2015) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1504720 · Cited by 12,315
Ahmed, A., Jorna, T., & Bhandari, S. (2016) · The Nephron journals/Nephron journals · doi:10.1159/000447068 · Cited by 11,782
Zhang, Q., Wang, C., Zheng, M., Li, Y., Li, J., Zhang, L., Shang, X., & Yan, C. (2014) · Cerebrovascular Diseases · doi:10.1159/000369778 · Cited by 11,609
2018 ESC/ESH Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension
Williams, B., Mancia, G., Spiering, W., Agabiti Rosei, E., Azizi, M., Burnier, M., Clement, D. L., Coca, A., de Simone, G., Dominiczak, A., et al. (2018) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehy339 · Cited by 10,286
Mach, F., Baigent, C., Catapano, A. L., Koskinas, K. C., Casula, M., Badimon, L., Chapman, M. J., De Backer, G. G., Delgado, V., Ference, B. A., et al. (2020) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehz455 · Cited by 8,961
European Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice (version 2012)
Authors/Task Force Members:, Perk, J., De Backer, G., Gohlke, H., Graham, I., Reiner, Ž., Verschuren, M., Albus, C., Benlian, P., Boysen, G., et al. (2012) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehs092 · Cited by 8,490
James, P. A., Oparil, S., Carter, B. L., Cushman, W. C., Dennison-Himmelfarb, C., Handler, J., Lackland, D. T., LeFevre, M. L., MacKenzie, T. D., Ogedegbe, O., et al. (2014) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2013.284427 · Cited by 7,950
Canagliflozin and Cardiovascular and Renal Events in Type 2 Diabetes
Neal, B., Perkovic, V., Mahaffey, K. W., de Zeeuw, D., Fulcher, G., Erondu, N., Shaw, W., Law, G., Desai, M., & Matthews, D. R. (2017) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1611925 · Cited by 7,830
Liraglutide and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes
Marso, S. P., Daniels, G. H., Brown-Frandsen, K., Kristensen, P., Mann, J. F. E., Nauck, M. A., Nissen, S. E., Pocock, S., Poulter, N. R., Ravn, L. S., et al. (2016) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1603827 · Cited by 7,629
Dapagliflozin in Patients with Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction
McMurray, J. J. V., Solomon, S. D., Inzucchi, S. E., Køber, L., Kosiborod, M. N., Martinez, F. A., Ponikowski, P., Sabatine, M. S., Anand, I. S., Bělohlávek, J., et al. (2019) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1911303 · Cited by 7,140
Self-citation
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 401–453 of 453
Biguetti, C. C., Chaves-Neto, A. H., Elvin, P. T., Fontaine, J. L., Brown, E. L., Hanis, C. L., & Fakhouri, W. D. (2025) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2025.06.23.25329883
Aydemir, S., Aydın, S. Ş., Altınkaya, O., Özmen, M., Çomaklı, N., & Aksakal, E. (2025) · BMC Cardiovascular Disorders · doi:10.1186/s12872-025-05132-6
Chapter 3: Point-of-Care Testing Protocol Development and Requirements
Riper, B. V. (2025) · The American Pharmacists Association eBooks · doi:10.21019/9780914768098.ch3
Advances in detection, prevention and treatment of heart failure in type 2 diabetes: part I
Cowley, A., Dattani, A., Brady, E. M., McCann, G. P., & Gulsin, G. S. (2024) · British Journal of Diabetes · doi:10.15277/bjd.2024.441
ICOSAPENT ETHYL AND ATHEROSCLEROTIC CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE IN TYPE 2 DIABETES (NARRATIVE REVIEW)
Serhiyenko, V. A., Serhiyenko, L., Cherkas, A., & Serhiyenko, A. A. (2023) · Proceedings of the Shevchenko Scientific Society Medical Sciences · doi:10.25040/ntsh2023.02.06
Oletu, H., Oladimeji, A. O., Okobi, E. K., Okwu, S., Kuye, A. A., Okobi, F., Osueni, A., Anya, O. O., Opoku, K. A., & Ogelebor, E. E. (2026) · Cureus · doi:10.7759/cureus.107319
Glycemic and lipid control in patients with diabetes at time of myocardial infarction
Lacqua, C., Adam, H., Zeller, M., Vadot, L., Bichât, F., Maza, M., Cottin, Y., & Boulin, M. (2024) · Annales Pharmaceutiques Françaises · doi:10.1016/j.pharma.2024.04.010
PATIENTS WITH RESISTANT ARTERIAL HYPERTENSION: OPTIONS OF THE DAILY BLOOD PRESSURE PROFILE
Kulbachuk, O., Eugene, S., Soloviov, O., et al. (2024) · Grail of Science · doi:10.36074/grail-of-science.01.11.2024.094
Diabetes mellitus und kardiovaskuläre Prävention
Kellerer, M., & Qiu, H. J. (2023) · Diabetes aktuell · doi:10.1055/a-2183-2739
Prevention of Heart Failure in People With Diabetes
Pandey, A., & Hernandez, A. F. (2026) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-323-87862-3.00015-x
Boyacı, İ., Delice, B., Koç, F., & Yıldırım, S. (2026) · Microbiology Spectrum · doi:10.1128/spectrum.00742-26
(2025) · The American Pharmacists Association eBooks · doi:10.21019/9780914768098.fm
Sang, H., Lee, H., Lee, M., Park, J., Cho, W., Kim, S. Y., Woo, H. G., Rahmati, M., Koyanagi, A., Smith, L., et al. (2023) · doi:10.2196/preprints.50420
Alshammari, M. H. M., Qureshi, A., Ibrahim, B., & Harun, S. N. (2025) · Journal Of Advanced Pharmacy Education And Research · doi:10.51847/6mc82mk4xz
Creţoiu, S. M., Iancu, M. A., Condur, L., Salmen, T., Steriu, A., Stănescu, A. M. A., Eremia, I. A., Olariu, C. M., Cinteză, E. E., & Diaconu, C. C. (2024) · Journal of Mind and Medical Sciences · doi:10.22543/2392-7674.1451
Frolenko, A. M., & Kolesnyk, M. Y. (2026) · Zaporozhye Medical Journal · doi:10.14739/2310-1210.2026.3.352338
Screening Test for Evaluation of Cardiovascular Disease in Patients with Diabetes
Mok, J., & Jung, C. (2023) · Journal of Korean Diabetes · doi:10.4093/jkd.2023.24.2.76
Yang, N., Liu, J., Ma, C., Zhu, D., Smith, S. C., Eckel, R. H., Morgan, L., Hao, Y., Liu, J., Zhou, Y., et al. (2025) · Cardiology Discovery · doi:10.1097/cd9.0000000000000161
Cardiac Macrovascular Complications of Diabetes
Karadeniz, F. Ö. (2023) · Current Perspective on Diabetes Mellitus in Clinical Sciences · doi:10.69860/nobel.9786053359111.9
Position Paper on Lipid Therapy in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus
Parhofer, K. G., Birkenfeld, A. L., Krone, W., Lehrke, M., Marx, N., Merkel, M., Schütt, K. S., Zirlik, A., & Müller‐Wieland, D. (2024) · Experimental and Clinical Endocrinology & Diabetes · doi:10.1055/a-2166-6859
Chapter 10: Other Disorders Related to Infectious Diseases
Santevecchi, B. A., & Childs‐Kean, L. M. (2025) · The American Pharmacists Association eBooks · doi:10.21019/9780914768098.ch10
Chapter 12: Dyslipidemia and Liver Function Abnormalities
Johnson, K., & Hegener, M. A. (2025) · The American Pharmacists Association eBooks · doi:10.21019/9780914768098.ch12
Keister, D., Lorenzen, S., Clemons, M., Renner, S. A., & Tasma, B. (2025) · JAPhA Practice Innovations · doi:10.1016/j.japhpi.2025.100086
Utilization of SGLT-2 Inhibitors in Congestive Heart Failure Management
Daniels, A., & Bank, D. (2023) · Advanced Journal of Graduate Research · doi:10.21467/ajgr.14.1.3-8
DeBoest, A., Holley, C., Hickey, M., Kallenberger, M., John, J., & Baker, M. (2025) · American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy · doi:10.1093/ajhp/zxaf344 · Cited by 1
Chapter 4: Building a Sustainable Business Model for Point-of-Care Testing Services
Gatewood, S. B. S., & Tran, D. (2025) · The American Pharmacists Association eBooks · doi:10.21019/9780914768098.ch4
Khadija, H. A., Alnees, M., Abdullah, A., Ibraheem, K., Makhlouf, T. Z., Cohen, R., Najajra, D., Twito, O., Schiller, T., & Kirzhner, A. (2026) · Diabetes & Metabolism · doi:10.1016/j.diabet.2026.101794
Шамхалова, М. Ш., Sukhareva, O. Y., & Yevloyeva, M. I. (2023) · Diabetes Mellitus · doi:10.14341/dm13107
Chapter 7: Streptococcal Infection
Smith, M. G. (2025) · The American Pharmacists Association eBooks · doi:10.21019/9780914768098.ch7
Salgado, M. V., Penko, J. M., Fernández, A., Ríos‐Fetchko, F., Coxson, P. G., & Méjía, R. (2024) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0305948
Nandave, M. (2024) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-97-7568-2_8
Nguyên, T. N., Nguyễn, V., & Chi, L. V. (2023) · Acta Informatica Medica · doi:10.5455/aim.2023.31.216-221 · Cited by 1
Gonçalves, J., Guimarães, A. R., Ferreira, H. U., Ribeiro, S., Moreno, T., Borges-Canha, M., Meira, I., Menino, J., Silva, F., Pedro, J., et al. (2024) · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4516742/v1 · Cited by 11
Wong, N. D., Karthikeyan, H., Fan, W., & Electricwala, B. (2026) · JACC Advances · doi:10.1016/j.jacadv.2025.102517
Karimi, F., Darabı, F., & Ezzati, F. (2025) · Discover Social Science and Health · doi:10.1007/s44155-025-00215-3
Yan, N., Wu, P., Zhang, Z., Wang, M., Ma, A., Chen, D., Jia, S., Ma, X., Li, X., & Ma, J. (2024) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4744022/v1
Oh, S., MITCHELL, C. M., White, K., Lu, M., Hu, X., Trost, J., Charleston, J. B., Wu, B., Schlechter, H., Thomas, L., et al. (2026) · Contemporary Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/j.cct.2026.108436
Realizing the Potential of PCSK9 Inhibition
Chapman, M. J., & Packard, C. J. (2023) · JACC · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2023.03.384
Chronische Niereninsuffizienz bei Typ-2-Diabetes – die stille Bedrohung einer Multisystemerkrankung
Günes-Altan, M., & Schmieder, R. E. (2024) · Aktuelle Kardiologie · doi:10.1055/a-2318-3452
Paquet, S., Delpech, R., Sassenou, J., Kab, S., Zins, M., Ringa, V., & Rigal, L. (2025) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-092205 · Cited by 1
DeVaughan-Circles, A., Legaspi, A. B., Nelson, T., Yao, Y., del Águila, M. J. S., Segal, R., Donahoo, W. T., Goins, R. T., Manson, S. M., Wilkie, D. J., et al. (2025) · Journal of the American Pharmacists Association · doi:10.1016/j.japh.2025.102494
Technological innovations in the treatment of diabetes over the last decade
Sonia, T. A., & Sharma, C. P. (2025) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-30272-5.00011-1
Lee, C. C., & Liu, S. (2026) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-45863-7.00086-x
Solela, G., Azanaw, H., Zegeye, H., Worku, A., & Leulseged, B. (2024) · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4314413/v1 · Cited by 5
Khogalee, M., Mohamed, S., Otim, M. E., Basher, M., Mumtaz, M., Thaslim, S., & Houni, A. E. (2026) · Clinical Therapeutics · doi:10.1016/j.clinthera.2026.08.004
Владимировна, Д. С. (2026) · Meditsinskiy sovet = Medical Council · doi:10.21518/ms2026-133
Talware, S. K., Bhati, G., Srivastava, G., et al. (2026) · Molecular Diversity · doi:10.1007/s11030-026-11676-2
Osude, N., & Pagidipati, N. J. (2023) · Medical Clinics of North America · doi:10.1016/j.mcna.2023.11.003
Adherence to comprehensive diabetes measures in people with HIV managed in a primary care clinic
Hardman, M. M., Aragon, K. G., Cloud Floyd, C. B., et al. (2025) · JAPhA Practice Innovations · doi:10.1016/j.japhpi.2025.100075
Cardiologia Teoria e Prática - Edição XIV
Freitas, G. B. L. D., EGIDIO, L. S. F., Moreira, J. A. C., Bortolucci, I., Gonçalves, G. V., CAMPOS, M. D., da Silva, G. F., Costa, M. F., & de Almeida, C. C. (2024) · doi:10.59290/978-65-6029-116-4
Liu, M., Zhen, Y., Shang, J., et al. (2024) · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3892022/v1
Metadata
- Authors
- ElSayed, N. A., Aleppo, G., Aroda, V. R., Bannuru, R. R., Brown, F. M., Bruemmer, D., Collins, B. S., Das, S. R., Hilliard, M. E., Isaacs, D., Johnson, E. L., Kahan, S., Khunti, K., Kosiborod, M., Leon, J., Lyons, S. K., Perry, M. L., Prahalad, P., Pratley, R. E., Seley, J. J., Stanton, R. C., & Gabbay, R. A.
- ORCID
- ElSayed, Nuha A.
- Aleppo, Grazia
- Aroda, Vanita R.
- Bannuru, Raveendhara R.
- Brown, Florence M.
- Bruemmer, Dennis
- Collins, Billy S.
- Das, Sandeep R.
- Hilliard, Marisa E.
- Isaacs, Diana
- Johnson, Eric L.
- Kahan, Scott
- Khunti, Kamlesh
- Kosiborod, Mikhail
- Lyons, Sarah K.
- Perry, Mary Lou
- Prahalad, Priya
- Pratley, Richard E.
- Seley, Jane Jeffrie
- Stanton, Robert C.
- Gabbay, Robert A.
- Venue
- Diabetes Care
- Publisher
- American Diabetes Association
- Published
- 2022-12-12
- Volume
- 46
- Issue
- Supplement_1
- Pages
- S158-S190
- ISSN
- 0149-5992 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC9810475
- OpenAlex
- W4311263985
- Cited by
- 465
- References
- 265
- Citations by year
- 2026: 43 · 2025: 104 · 2024: 186 · 2023: 132
- FWCI
- 15.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- correction (2023-01-26)
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Diabetes Care (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
- Keywords
- cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular risk management, clinical guidelines, quality of care, treatment goals
- MeSH terms
- Cardiovascular Diseases, Diabetes Mellitus, Endocrinology, Humans, Reference Standards, Societies, Medical, Standard of Care
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-05, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-05 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
