Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21074071›Full record

ArticleAtencion primaria2010

[Current clinical practice guidelines in type 2 diabetes: how should they be applied in primary care?].

Jorge Navarro Pérez, Alejandro Navarro Adam, Domingo Orozco Beltrán, Vicente Gil Guillén, Concepción Carratalá Munuera

Abstract readEnglish Abstract
In one paragraph

Article in Atencion primaria, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Jorge Navarro PérezDepartamento de Medicina, Universitat de València, València, España. navarro_jorge@gva.es
Alejandro Navarro Adam
Domingo Orozco Beltrán
Vicente Gil Guillén
Concepción Carratalá Munuera

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical practice guidelines should be drawn up with systematic methodology based on the best available evidence. Recommendations should be based on evaluation of the overall quality of the evidence and grading of the strength of recommendations. Consensus documents combine a review of the evidence with expert opinion in an attempt to reach some agreement in areas of uncertainty due to the lack of conclusive proof. The debate aroused by new treatments stimulates the production of documents advocating their use even when there are few long-term studies on their safety and efficacy. There are several methodologically rigorous international guidelines on diabetes (NGC, NICE, SIGN, CAD, ADA). The most recent debate has centered on the ADA-EASD treatment algorithm. In Spain, the production of clinical practice guidelines with analysis of the evidence and grading of recommendations remains scarce, although the most recent published guidelines show greater rigor. More common is the drafting of consensus documents by scientific societies with the aim of combining external evidence with experience and reflection. In Spain there are also organisms (such as GuíaSalud or Fisterra) that facilitate free access to guidelines drawn up by Spanish groups.

Indexed as

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2HumansPractice Guidelines as TopicPrimary Health CareSpain

Identifiers

PMID21074071
PMCPMC8171389

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.