Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24716890›Full record

ReviewDiabetes technology & therapeutics2014

Self-monitoring of blood glucose in diabetes: from evidence to clinical reality in Central and Eastern Europe--recommendations from the international Central-Eastern European expert group.

Leszek Czupryniak, László Barkai, Svetlana Bolgarska, Agata Bronisz, Jan Broz, Katarzyna Cypryk, Marek Honka, Andrej Janez, Mladen Krnic, Nebojsa Lalic and 7 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Diabetes technology & therapeutics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 88 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Factors impacting electronic patient-generated data use in safety-net systems: a qualitative study.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2025
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

17 authors at 14 institutions in 11 countries.

Leszek Czupryniak1 Internal Medicine and Diabetology Department, Medical University of Lodz , Lodz, Poland .
László Barkai
Svetlana Bolgarska
Agata Bronisz
Jan Broz
Katarzyna Cypryk
Marek Honka
Andrej Janez
Mladen Krnic
Nebojsa Lalic
Emil Martinka
Dario Rahelic
Gabriela Roman
Tsvetalina Tankova
Tamás Várkonyi
Bogumił Wolnik
Nadia Zherdova
Charles University · CZMedical University of Lodz · PLState Institution «Academician O.F.Vozianov Institute of Urology of the National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine» · UAGdańsk Medical University · PLInstitute of Experimental Endocrinology of the Slovak Academy of Sciences · SKIuliu Hațieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy · ROLjubljana University Medical Centre · SIMedical University of Sofia · BGNicolaus Copernicus University · PLUniversity Hospital Centre Zagreb · HRUniversity Hospital Dubrava · HRUniversity of Belgrade · RSUniversity of Debrecen · HUUniversity of Szeged · HU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) is universally considered to be an integral part of type 1 diabetes management and crucial for optimizing the safety and efficacy of complex insulin regimens. This extends to type 2 diabetes patients on intensive insulin therapy, and there is also a growing body of evidence suggesting that structured SMBG is beneficial for all type 2 diabetes patients, regardless of therapy. However, access to SMBG can be limited in many countries in Central and Eastern Europe. A consensus group of diabetes experts from 10 countries in this region (with overlapping historical, political, and social environments)--Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Ukraine--was formed to discuss the role of SMBG across the spectrum of patients with diabetes. The group considered SMBG to be an essential tool that should be accessible to all patients with diabetes, including those with non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes. The current article summarizes the evidence put forward by the consensus group and provides their recommendations for the appropriate use of SMBG as part of individualized patient management. The ultimate goal of these evidence-based recommendations is to help patients and providers in Central and Eastern Europe to make optimal use of SMBG in order to maximize the efficacy and safety of glucose-lowering therapies, to prevent complications, and to empower the patient to play a more active role in the management of their diabetes.

Indexed as

Blood Glucose Self-MonitoringBlood GlucoseConsensus Statements as TopicDiabetes Mellitus, Type 1Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2EuropeEvidence-Based MedicineGlycated HemoglobinHumansHyperglycemiaHypoglycemiaPractice Guidelines as TopicBlood GlucoseGlycated Hemoglobinhemoglobin A1c protein, human

Identifiers

PMID24716890
PMCPMC4074758
OpenAlexW2053834796

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.