CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 161Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsDiabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes Treatment and Management

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

GHb Is a Better Predictor of Cardiovascular Disease Than Fasting or Postchallenge Plasma Glucose in Women Without Diabetes: The Rancho Bernardo Study

Park, Sue, Barrett-Connor, Elizabeth, Wingard, Deborah L, Shan, Jun, Edelstein, Sharon·1996·Diabetes Care
DOI 10.2337/diacare.19.5.450
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To examine the relation between GHb, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), postchallenge plasma glucose (PCPG), and mortality from cardiovascular disease (CVD) and ischemic heart disease (IHD) in older adults. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A community-based study of 1,239 nondiabetic older adults followed for an average of 8 years, from baseline (1984–1987) to 1993. RESULTS: GHb, but not FPG or PCPG, was significantly related to CVD and IHD mortality in women but not men. The age-adjusted relative hazard for those in the highest quintile of GHb (≥ 6.7%) compared with women with lower levels was 2.37 for fatal CVD (95% CI = 1.30−4.31, P = 0.005) and 2.43 for IHD (95% CI = 1.12−5.25, P = 0.024). This association persisted after adjustment for all covariates (age, systolic blood pressure, BMI, LDL, HDL, triglycerides, cigarette smoking, antihypertensive medication use, and estrogen use). GHb was significantly associated with LDL and HDL levels in women, but the association between GHb and CVD or IHD persisted after adjustment for these lipoproteins. CONCLUSIONS: We concluded that GHb is a better predictor of CVD and IHD mortality than FPG or PCPG in women without diabetes; no single measure of glycemia was predictive in men. The reason for the sex difference is unexplained.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2337/diacare.19.5.450

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–161 of 161

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Park, S., Barrett-Connor, E., Wingard, D. L., Shan, J., & Edelstein, S.
Affiliations
University of California San Diego (US)
ORCID
Venue
Diabetes Care
Publisher
American Diabetes Association
Published
1996-05-01
Volume
19
Issue
5
Pages
450-456
ISSN
  • 0149-5992 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-5548
DOI
10.2337/diacare.19.5.450
OpenAlex
W2006867892
Cited by
161
References
0
Citations by year
2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 9
FWCI
1.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Diabetes Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (HL 07491, T35HL007491)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R01DK031801, DK-31801)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
Keywords
HbA1c, cardiovascular mortality, ischemic heart disease mortality, fasting blood glucose, glycemic markers, sex differences, older women, cardiovascular risk prediction
MeSH terms
Adult, Age Factors, Blood Glucose, Blood Pressure, California, Cardiovascular Diseases, Fasting, Female, Glucose Tolerance Test, Heart Diseases, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Cholesterol, HDL, Cholesterol, LDL, Male, Middle Aged, Predictive Value of Tests, Reference Values, Risk Factors, Sex Characteristics, Triglycerides, Biomarkers, Body Mass Index, Myocardial Ischemia, Risk Assessment

About these checks

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

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

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

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

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