Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23216660›Full record

ArticleCardiovascular diabetology2012

Achievement of recommended glucose and blood pressure targets in patients with type 2 diabetes and hypertension in clinical practice - study rationale and protocol of DIALOGUE.

Anselm K Gitt, Roland E Schmieder, Eva Duetting, Peter Bramlage, Steffen Schneider, Diethelm Tschöpe, DIALOGUE Study Group

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Cardiovascular diabetology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
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

7 authors.

Anselm K GittStiftung Institut für Herzinfarktforschung Ludwigshafen, Bremser Strasse 79, 67063, Ludwigshafen, Germany. gitta@klilu.de
Roland E Schmieder
Eva Duetting
Peter Bramlage
Steffen Schneider
Diethelm Tschöpe
DIALOGUE Study Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients with type 2 diabetes have 2-4 times greater risk for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality than those without, and this is even further aggravated if they also suffer from hypertension. Unfortunately, less than one third of hypertensive diabetic patients meet blood pressure targets, and more than half fail to achieve target HbA1c values. Thus, appropriate blood pressure and glucose control are of utmost importance. Since treatment sometimes fails in clinical practice while clinical trials generally suggest good efficacy, data from daily clinical practice, especially with regard to the use of newly developed anti-diabetic and anti-hypertensive compounds in unselected patient populations, are essential. The DIALOGUE registry aims to close this important gap by evaluating different treatment approaches in hypertensive type 2 diabetic patients with respect to their effectiveness and tolerability and their impact on outcomes. In addition, DIALOGUE is the first registry to determine treatment success based on the new individualized treatment targets recommended by the ADA and the EASD.

methodsDIALOGUE is a prospective observational German multicentre registry and will enrol 10,000 patients with both diabetes and hypertension in up to 700 sites. After a baseline visit, further documentations are scheduled at 6, 12 and 24 months. There are two co-primary objectives referring to the most recent guidelines for the treatment of diabetes and hypertension: 1) individual HbA1c goal achievement with respect to anti-diabetic pharmacotherapy and 2) individual blood pressure goal achievement with different antihypertensive treatments. Among the secondary objectives the rate of major cardio-vascular and cerebro-vascular events (MACCE) and the rate of hospitalizations are the most important.

conclusionThe registry will be able to gain insights into the reasons for the obvious gap between the demonstrated efficacy and safety of anti-diabetic and anti-hypertensive drugs in clinical trials and their real world balance of effectiveness and safety.

Indexed as

Research DesignAntihypertensive AgentsBiomarkersBlood GlucoseBlood PressureCardiovascular DiseasesCerebrovascular DisordersDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2GermanyGlycated HemoglobinGuideline AdherenceHumansHypertensionHypoglycemic AgentsPractice Guidelines as TopicPractice Patterns, Physicians'Antihypertensive AgentsBiomarkersBlood GlucoseGlycated Hemoglobinhemoglobin A1c protein, humanHypoglycemic Agents

Identifiers

PMID23216660
PMCPMC3537604

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.