ArticleEndocrine2015
Setting the hemoglobin A1c target in type 2 diabetes: a priori, a posteriori, or neither?
Article in Endocrine, 2015. 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Premixed insulin regimens in type 2 diabetes: pros.Endocrine · 2017Article
- Achievement of individualized treatment targets in patients with comorbid type-2 diabetes and hypertension: 6 months results of the DIALOGUE registry.BMC endocrine disorders · 2015Observational
- Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease is associated with coronary artery calcium score in diabetes patients with higher HbA1c.Diabetology & metabolic syndrome · 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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Current guidelines specify hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) targets around or less than 7.0 %, with more (<6.5 %) or less (<8 %) stringent goals being appropriate for selected patients. The difficulty in setting a precise HbA1c target depends, at least in part, on the physician perception of the relative importance of the parameters to be considered when determining the target. Using the "a priori" approach, physicians set the HbA1c target first, then prescribe the appropriate antidiabetic drug in order to cover the distance from the target, i.e., the difference between the current HbA1c value of the patient and the individualized HbA1c target: calculating the distance from the target may also be useful as a predictor of therapeutic success. In the "a posteriori" approach, physicians first prescribe, then decide if the achieved HbA1c is an appropriate level for that patient. Attainment of the HbA1c target ultimately depends on which target the physician set: both approaches ("a priori" and "a posteriori") may be useful for both physicians to make appropriate therapeutic decisions and patients to adhere to the best possible treatment. All this presumably will avoid unnecessary therapeutic inertia.
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.