Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20352408›Full record

ArticleDiabetologia2010

Is the ADA/EASD algorithm for the management of type 2 diabetes (January 2009) based on evidence or opinion? A critical analysis.

G Schernthaner, A H Barnett, D J Betteridge, R Carmena, A Ceriello, B Charbonnel, M Hanefeld, R Lehmann, M T Malecki, R Nesto and 6 more

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diabetologia, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 33 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Guideline
  3. Guideline
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Safety and effectiveness of bolus insulin aspart in people with type 2 diabetes: a1chieve sub-analysis.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2013
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

G SchernthanerDepartment of Medicine I, Rudolfstiftung Hospital-Vienna, Juchgasse 25, 1030, Vienna, Austria. guntram.schernthaner@meduniwien.ac.at
A H Barnett
D J Betteridge
R Carmena
A Ceriello
B Charbonnel
M Hanefeld
R Lehmann
M T Malecki
R Nesto
V Pirags
A Scheen
J Seufert
A Sjohölm
A Tsatsoulis
R DeFronzo

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The ADA and the EASD recently published a consensus statement for the medical management of hyperglycaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes. The authors advocate initial treatment with metformin monotherapy and lifestyle modification, followed by addition of basal insulin or a sulfonylurea if glycaemic goals are not met (tier 1 recommendations). All other glucose-lowering therapies are relegated to a secondary (tier 2) status and only recommended for selected clinical settings. In our view, this algorithm does not offer physicians and patients the appropriate selection of options to individualise and optimise care with a view to sustained control of blood glucose and reduction both of diabetes complications and cardiovascular risk. This paper critically assesses the basis of the ADA/EASD algorithm and the resulting tiers of treatment options.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsCardiovascular DiseasesDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2EuropeHumansHyperglycemiaHypoglycemic AgentsRisk FactorsSocieties, MedicalUnited StatesHypoglycemic Agents

Identifiers

PMID20352408
PMCPMC2877312

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.