ReviewEndocrine2014
New guidelines for metabolic targets in diabetes: clinician's opinion does matter.
Review in Endocrine, 2014. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Shared decision making in type 2 diabetes with a support decision tool that takes into account clinical factors, the intensity of treatment and patient preferences: design of a cluster randomised (OPTIMAL) trial.BMC family practice · 2015Trial
- Dilemma of self-management among patients with diabetes in primary care settings in China: a qualitative study.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Glucose, cholesterol, and blood pressure: is lower always better for type 2 diabetes?Endocrine · 2016Article
- Setting the hemoglobin A1c target in type 2 diabetes: a priori, a posteriori, or neither?Endocrine · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Evidence-based medicine replaced eminence-based medicine as a way to manage unavoidable clinical uncertainty. Moving away from "one-size-fits-all" medicine, personalized medicine seemed to have the potential of tailoring therapies to subsets of patients. Despite the rapid progress in drug development for diabetes, it is still challenging to achieve good glycemic control in a substantial population. Different diabetes management algorithms have been proposed: most agree with a HbA1c target of <7.0 % for the majority of people with diabetes, except the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) that claims for a lower HbA1c target (<6.5 %). The recently released American guidelines on the treatment of blood cholesterol recommends moderate-intensity statin therapy for primary prevention for persons aged 40-75 years with type 1 or 2 diabetes and LDL-cholesterol levels between 70 and 189 mg/dl. The Eighth Joint National Committee recommends pharmacologic treatment in the population aged 18 years or older with diabetes, with a goal systolic blood pressure of lower than 140 mmHg and a goal diastolic blood pressure lower than 90 mmHg. There are differences and similarities among these recent guidelines for people with diabetes, with the main differences related to the level of the evidence. There are recommendations based on expert opinions (insufficient evidence or existing evidence unclear or conflicting) in almost all guidelines. The ultimate decision about care of a particular patient is left to clinicians, as the way to manage unavoidable guideline uncertainty: clinician's opinion does matter.
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.