ArticleDiabetologia2010
From authority recommendations to fact-sheets--a future for guidelines.
Article in Diabetologia, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Evidence base in guideline generation in diabetes.Diabetologia · 2013Review
- Incorporating the patient perspective: a critical review of clinical practice guidelines for implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2013Review
- Antidiabetic treatment: Though lovers be lost, love shall not.World journal of diabetes · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
ADA/EASD recommendations and diabetes expert consensus statements are not evidence-based. Reform of guideline development is urgently needed. Overriding governance and composition of the guideline committee is a key problem. Methodologists without important conflicts of interest should lead the development process and have primary responsibility. The rating of the quality of evidence should be separated from making the recommendations, transparency has to be increased and conflicts of interest must be tackled. Patient needs are not yet met in guidelines. Patients increasingly demand concise, easy-to-read summaries of the benefits and risks of medicines together with more comprehensive scientific data. However, patient participation in individual decision making is not considered in guidelines. Guidelines do not provide the information necessary for informed or shared decision making. Study fact-sheets and drug facts boxes should be included in practice guidelines. It is timely to consider patient needs from the outset of the development of future guidelines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20803189What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.