ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2011
Comparison of anti-diabetic drug prescribing in children and adolescents in seven European countries.
Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Increased Metformin Clearance in Overweight and Obese Adolescents: A Pharmacokinetic Substudy of a Randomized Controlled Trial.Paediatric drugs · 2018Trial
- Article
- Long term trends in oral antidiabetic drug use among children and adolescents in the Netherlands.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2015Article
- Authors' response to Bachmann and Hoffman's comments on psychopharmacological prescriptions for people with autism spectrum disorder (ASD): a multinational study.Psychopharmacology · 2015Article
- Drug use profile in outpatient children and adolescents in different Italian regions.BMC pediatrics · 2013Article
- Exploring pharmacoepidemiologic groupings of drugs from a clinical perspective.Studies in health technology and informatics · 2013Article
- Drug Utilisation Patterns in Children Admitted to a Paediatric General Medical Ward in Five Countries.Drugs - real world outcomesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 9 institutions in 9 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsThe aim of this study was to compare the prevalence of diabetes in children across seven European countries, when using prescribing of anti-diabetics as a proxy for diabetes. A secondary aim was to assess the potential for collaboration between countries using different databases in diabetes research.
methodsData were obtained from population-based clinical databases in seven European countries. The study population comprised children aged 0-18 years. Prescriptions were categorized using the Anatomic Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification. The one-year user prevalence in 2008 was calculated for each country and stratified by age and sex.
resultsWe studied a total of 5.8 million children and adolescents. The prevalence of insulin prescribing varied between 1.1 and 3.5 per 1000 population, being highest in Sweden and lowest in Italy. In all countries, novel insulin analogues were the most commonly used insulins. The prevalence of oral anti-diabetic prescribing ranged from 0.08 per 1000 individuals in Sweden and Germany to 0.21 per 1000 population in the UK. Overall, the absolute number of oral anti-diabetic users was very low.
conclusionThis study shows that there is a varying frequency of type 1 diabetes in children and adolescents across Europe. We also demonstrated that it is possible to obtain similar information from different clinical databases within Europe, which would allow continuous monitoring of type 1 diabetes. Owing to the lack of indications in most of the databases, this approach is less suitable for type 2 diabetes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.