***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: Background Earlier diagnosis followed by multi-factorial cardiovascular risk intervention may improve outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus ( T2DM ) . Latent phase identification through screening requires structured , appropriately targeted population -based approaches . Providers responsible for implementing screening policy await evidence of clinical and cost effectiveness from r and omised intervention trials in screen-detected T2DM cases . UK South Asians are at particularly high risk of abnormal glucose tolerance and T2DM . To be effective national screening programmes must achieve good coverage across the population by identifying barriers to the detection of disease and adapting to the delivery of earlier care . Here we describe the rationale and methods of a systematic community screening programme and r and omised controlled trial of cardiovascular risk management within a UK multiethnic setting ( ADDITION-Leicester ) . Design A single-blind cluster r and omised , parallel group trial among people with screen-detected T2DM comparing a protocol driven intensive multi-factorial treatment with conventional care . Methods ADDITION-Leicester consists of community-based screening and intervention phases within 20 general practice s coordinated from a single academic research centre . Screening adopts a universal diagnostic approach via repeated 75g-Oral Glucose Tolerance Tests within an eligible non-diabetic population of 66,320 individuals aged 40 - 75 years ( 25 - 75 years South Asian ) . Volunteers also provide detailed medical and family histories ; complete health question naires , undergo anthropometric measures , lipid profiling and a proteinuria assessment . Primary outcome is reduction in modelled Coronary Heart Disease ( UKPDS CHD ) risk at five years .  Seven thous and ( 30 % of South Asian ethnic origin ) volunteers over three years will be recruited to identify a screen-detected T2DM cohort ( n = 285 ) powered to detected a 6 % relative difference ( 80 % power , alpha 0.05 ) between treatment groups at one year . R and omisation will occur at practice -level with newly diagnosed T2DM cases receiving either conventional ( according to current national guidelines ) or intensive ( algorithmic target-driven multi-factorial cardiovascular risk intervention ) treatments . Discussion ADDITION-Leicester is the largest multiethnic ( targeting > 30 % South Asian recruitment ) community T2DM and vascular risk screening programme in the UK . By assessing feasibility and efficacy of T2DM screening , it will inform national disease prevention policy and contribute significantly to our underst and ing of the health care needs of UK South Asians . Trial registration Clinical trial.gov ( NCT00318032 ) Objective To quantify the psychological impact of primary care based stepwise screening for type 2 diabetes . Design Controlled trial and comparative study embedded in a r and omised controlled trial . Setting 15 practice s ( 10 screening , five control ) in the ADDITION ( Cambridge ) trial in the east of Engl and . Participants 7380 adults ( aged 40 - 69 ) in the top fourth for risk of having undiagnosed type 2 diabetes ( 6416 invited for screening , 964 controls ) . Interventions Invited for screening for type 2 diabetes or not invited ( controls ) , incorporating a comparative study of subgroups of screening attenders . Attenders completed question naires after a r and om blood glucose test and at 3 - 6 months and 12 - 15 months later . Controls were sent question naires at corresponding time points . Non-attenders were sent question naires at 3 - 6 months and 12 - 15 months . Main outcome measures State anxiety ( Spielberger state anxiety inventory ) , anxiety and depression ( hospital anxiety and depression scale ) , worry about diabetes , and self rated health . Results No significant differences were found between the screening and control participants at any time — for example , difference in means ( 95 % confidence intervals ) for state anxiety after the initial blood glucose test was −0.53 , −2.60 to 1.54 , at 3 - 6 months was 1.51 ( −0.17 to 3.20 ) , and at 12 - 15 months was 0.57 , −1.11 to 2.24 . After the initial test , compared with participants who screened negative , those who screened positive reported significantly poorer general health ( difference in means −0.19 , −0.25 to −0.13 ) , higher state anxiety ( 0.93 , −0.02 to 1.88 ) , higher depression ( 0.32 , 0.08 to 0.56 ) , and higher worry about diabetes ( 0.25 , 0.09 to 0.41 ) , although effect sizes were small . Small but significant trends were found for self rated health across the screening subgroups at 3 - 6 months ( P=0.047 ) and for worry about diabetes across the screen negative groups at 3 - 6 months and 12 - 15 months ( P=0.001 ) . Conclusions Screening for type 2 diabetes has limited psychological impact on patients . Implementing a national screening programme based on the stepwise screening procedure used in the ADDITION ( Cambridge ) trial is unlikely to have significant consequences for patients ' psychological health . Trial registration Current Controlled Trials IS RCT N99175498 Highlights • We examined individuals with screen-detected diabetes over five years.• Two cardio-protective agents were prescribed at diagnosis , 3 at one year and 4 at five years.• Increases in cardio-protective medication did not impact negatively on Objective To examine the prevalence of outcome reporting bias — the selection for publication of a subset of the original recorded outcome variables on the basis of the results — and its impact on Cochrane review s. Design A nine point classification system for missing outcome data in r and omised trials was developed and applied to the trials assessed in a large , unselected cohort of Cochrane systematic review s. Research ers who conducted the trials were contacted and the reason sought for the non-reporting of data . A sensitivity analysis was undertaken to assess the impact of outcome reporting bias on review s that included a single meta- analysis of the review primary outcome . Results More than half ( 157/283 ( 55 % ) ) the review s did not include full data for the review primary outcome of interest from all eligible trials . The median amount of review outcome data missing for any reason was 10 % , whereas 50 % or more of the potential data were missing in 70 ( 25 % ) review s. It was clear from the publications for 155 ( 6 % ) of the 2486 assessable trials that the research ers had measured and analysed the review primary outcome but did not report or only partially reported the results . For reports that did not mention the review primary outcome , our classification regarding the presence of outcome reporting bias was shown to have a sensitivity of 88 % ( 95 % CI 65 % to 100 % ) and specificity of 80 % ( 95 % CI 69 % to 90 % ) on the basis of responses from 62 trialists . A third of Cochrane review s ( 96/283 ( 34 % ) ) contained at least one trial with high suspicion of outcome reporting bias for the review primary outcome . In a sensitivity analysis undertaken for 81 review s with a single meta- analysis of the primary outcome of interest , the treatment effect estimate was reduced by 20 % or more in 19 ( 23 % ) . Of the 42 meta-analyses with a statistically significant result only , eight ( 19 % ) became non-significant after adjustment for outcome reporting bias and 11 ( 26 % ) would have overestimated the treatment effect by 20 % or more . Conclusions Outcome reporting bias is an under-recognised problem that affects the conclusions in a substantial proportion of Cochrane review s. Individuals conducting systematic review s need to address explicitly the issue of missing outcome data for their review to be considered a reliable source of evidence . Extra care is required during data extraction , review ers should identify when a trial reports that an outcome was measured but no results were reported or events observed , and contact with trialists should be encouraged Summary Background The increasing prevalence of type 2 diabetes poses a major public health challenge . Population -based screening and early treatment for type 2 diabetes could reduce this growing burden . However , uncertainty persists around the benefits of screening for type 2 diabetes . We assessed the effect of a population -based stepwise screening programme on mortality . Methods In a pragmatic parallel group , cluster-r and omised trial , 33 general practice s in eastern Engl and were r and omly assigned by the method of minimisation in an unbalanced design to : screening followed by intensive multifactorial treatment for people diagnosed with diabetes ( n=15 ) ; screening plus routine care of diabetes according to national guidelines ( n=13 ) ; and a no-screening control group ( n=5 ) . The study population consisted of 20 184 individuals aged 40–69 years ( mean 58 years ) , at high risk of prevalent undiagnosed diabetes , on the basis of a previously vali date d risk score . In screening practice s , individuals were invited to a stepwise programme including r and om capillary blood glucose and glycated haemoglobin ( HbA1c ) tests , a fasting capillary blood glucose test , and a confirmatory oral glucose tolerance test . The primary outcome was all-cause mortality . All participants were flagged for mortality surveillance by the Engl and and Wales Office of National Statistics . Analysis was by intention-to-screen and compared all-cause mortality rates between screening and control groups . This study is registered , number IS RCT N86769081 . Findings Of 16 047 high-risk individuals in screening practice s , 15 089 ( 94 % ) were invited for screening during 2001–06 , 11 737 ( 73 % ) attended , and 466 ( 3 % ) were diagnosed with diabetes . 4137 control individuals were followed up . During 184 057 person-years of follow up ( median duration 9·6 years [ IQR 8·9–9·9 ] ) , there were 1532 deaths in the screening practice s and 377 in control practice s ( mortality hazard ratio [ HR ] 1·06 , 95 % CI 0·90–1·25 ) . We noted no significant reduction in cardiovascular ( HR 1·02 , 95 % CI 0·75–1·38 ) , cancer ( 1·08 , 0·90–1·30 ) , or diabetes-related mortality ( 1·26 , 0·75–2·10 ) associated with invitation to screening . Interpretation In this large UK sample , screening for type 2 diabetes in patients at increased risk was not associated with a reduction in all-cause , cardiovascular , or diabetes-related mortality within 10 years . The benefits of screening might be smaller than expected and restricted to individuals with detectable disease . Funding Wellcome Trust ; UK Medical Research Council ; National Health Service research and development support ; UK National Institute for Health Research ; University of Aarhus , Denmark ; Bio-Rad PURPOSE We aim ed to assess the impact of spin ( ie , reporting to convince readers that the beneficial effect of the experimental treatment is greater than shown by the results ) on the interpretation of results of abstract s of r and omized controlled trials ( RCTs ) in the field of cancer . METHODS We performed a two-arm , parallel-group RCT . We selected a sample of published RCTs with statistically nonsignificant primary outcome and with spin in the abstract conclusion . Two versions of these abstract s were used-the original with spin and a rewritten version without spin . Participants were clinician corresponding authors of articles reporting RCTs , investigators of trials , and review ers of French national grants . The primary outcome was clinicians ' interpretation of the beneficial effect of the experimental treatment ( 0 to 10 scale ) . Participants were blinded to study hypothesis . RESULTS Three hundred clinicians were r and omly assigned using a Web-based system ; 150 clinicians assessed an abstract with spin and 150 assessed an abstract without spin . For abstract s with spin , the experimental treatment was rated as being more beneficial ( mean difference , 0.71 ; 95 % CI , 0.07 to 1.35 ; P = .030 ) , the trial was rated as being less rigorous ( mean difference , -0.59 ; 95 % CI , -1.13 to 0.05 ; P = .034 ) , and clinicians were more interested in reading the full-text article ( mean difference , 0.77 ; 95 % CI , 0.08 to 1.47 ; P = .029 ) . There was no statistically significant difference in the clinicians ' rating of the importance of the study or the need to run another trial . CONCLUSION Spin in abstract s can have an impact on clinicians ' interpretation of the trial results Aims /hypothesisWithin a trial of intensive treatment of people with screen-detected diabetes , we aim ed to assess a potential spillover effect of the trial intervention on incident cardiovascular disease ( CVD ) and all-cause mortality among people who screened positive on a diabetes risk question naire but who were normoglycaemic . Methods In the Anglo – Danish – Dutch Study of Intensive Treatment In People with Screen-Detected Diabetes in Primary Care (ADDITION)-Denmark trial , 175 general practice s were cluster-r and omised into : ( 1 ) screening plus routine care of individuals with screen-detected diabetes ( control group ) ;  or (  2 ) screening plus training and support in intensive multifactorial treatment of individuals with screen-detected diabetes ( intervention  group  ) . We identified all individuals who screened positive on a diabetes risk question naire in ADDITION-Denmark but were normoglycaemic following biochemical testing for use in this secondary analysis . After a median 8 
    Output:
    
Diabetes-related morbidity and health-related quality of life were only reported in a sub sample and did not show a substantial difference between the screening intervention and control .
AUTHORS ' CONCLUSIONS We are uncertain about the effects of screening for type 2 diabetes on all-cause mortality and diabetes-related mortality .
We are therefore unable to draw any firm conclusions relating to the health outcomes of early type 2 diabetes mellitus screening .