Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23566992›Full record

ArticleJournal of diabetes science and technology2013

Driving with diabetes: precaution, not prohibition, is the proper approach.

Daniel B Kohrman

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 32% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Daniel B KohrmanFoundation Litigation, 601 E Street NW, Rm. B4-454, Washington DC 20015, USA. dkohrman@aarp.org
AARP Foundation · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Safety issues posed by driving with diabetes are primarily related to severe hypoglycemia, yet some public authorities rely on categorical restrictions on drivers with diabetes. This approach is misguided. Regulation of all drivers with diabetes, or all drivers using insulin, ignores the diversity of people with diabetes and fails to focus on the subpopulation posing the greatest risk. Advances in diabetes care technology and understanding of safety consequences of diabetes have expanded techniques available to limit risks of driving with diabetes. New means of insulin administration and blood glucose monitoring offer greater ease of anticipating and preventing hypoglycemia, and thus, limit driving risk for persons with diabetes. So too do less sophisticated steps taken by people with diabetes and the health care professionals they consult. These include adoption and endorsement of safety-sensitive behaviors, such as testing before a drive and periodic testing on longer trips. Overall, and in most individual cases, driving risks for persons with diabetes are less than those routinely tolerated by our society. Examples include freedom to drive in dangerous conditions and lax regulation of drivers in age and medical cohorts with elevated overall rates of driving mishaps. Data linking specific diabetes symptoms or features with driving risk are quite uncertain. Hence, there is much to recommend: a focus on technological advances, human precautions, and identifying individuals with diabetes with a specific history of driving difficulty. By contrast, available evidence does not support unfocused regulation of all or most drivers with diabetes.

Indexed as

Diabetes MellitusAccidents, TrafficAutomobile DrivingEndocrinologyHumansHypoglycemiaRiskSocieties, Medical

Identifiers

PMID23566992
PMCPMC3737635
OpenAlexW2132361916

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.