ArticleDiabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders2013
Physician preferences for extra-glycemic effects of type 2 diabetes treatments.
Article in Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders, 2013. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic review and validity assessment of methods used in discrete choice experiments of primary healthcare professionals.Health economics review · 2020Review
- Patient and physician preferences for type 2 diabetes medications: a systematic review.Journal of diabetes and metabolic disorders · 2019Review
- Patient Preferences for Attributes of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Medications in Germany and Spain: An Online Discrete-Choice Experiment Survey.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2017Article
- Patients' and physicians' preferences for type 2 diabetes mellitus treatments in Spain and Portugal: a discrete choice experiment.Patient preference and adherence · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe purpose of this study was to quantify United States (US) and United Kingdom (UK) physicians' preferences for attributes of type 2 diabetes treatments.
methodsSamples of general practitioners (GPs) and endocrinologists in the US (n = 204) and the UK (n = 200) completed a discrete-choice experiment in which respondents chose between pairs of hypothetical type 2 diabetes treatments in a series of trade-off questions. The questions described hypothetical injectable treatments with differing levels of attributes, such as glucose control and treatment side effects. Relative importance of attributes was estimated by a multivariate regression model for limited dependent variables. These results were used to calculate how the predicted probability of choosing hypothetical type 2 diabetes treatments varies with changes in given attributes.
resultsThe most important attributes to physicians were glucose control, risk of a fatal myocardial infarction (MI), and weight change. For US physicians, glucose control was about twice as important as gastrointestinal side effects, 5 times more important than changes in depression symptoms, and 20 times more important than liver monitoring. For UK physicians, reduction in MI risk was about 1.5 times more important than glucose control, 2.5 times more important than gastrointestinal side effects, and 10 times more important than liver-monitoring requirements. Preferences were similar among physicians in the US and the UK and among GPs and endocrinologists.
conclusionsPhysicians valued type 2 diabetes treatments that go beyond glycemic control, although mitigating different complications and comorbidities was not equally as important.
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.