ArticlePatient preference and adherence2018
Lack of coordination between partners: investigation of Physician-Preferred and Patient-Preferred (4P) basal insulin titration algorithms in the real world.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2018. 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.
- Time for Using Machine Learning for Dose Guidance in Titration of People With Type 2 Diabetes? A Systematic Review of Basal Insulin Dose Guidance.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2024Pooled it
- Comparison of Efficacy and Adherence of Patient-Preferred (1 Unit Daily) and ADA/EASD Guideline-Recommended (2 Units Every 3 Days) Basal Insulin Titration Algorithms: Multicenter, Randomized, Clinical Study.Patient preference and adherence · 2024Article
- Diabetes Patients' Acceptance of Injectable Treatment, a Scientometric Analysis.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Practical guidance on the initiation, titration, and switching of basal insulins: a narrative review for primary care.Annals of medicine · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient-centered care is respectful to a patient's preference. All prior clinical trials on patient self-titration algorithms for basal insulin were decided by physicians. We hypothesized that patients and physicians have different preferences. PATIENTS AND
methodsPhysicians and diabetes patients were asked to choose their preferred insulin glargine self-titration algorithm among 5 algorithms. Algorithm 1, 1 U increase once daily; algorithm 2, 2 U increase every 3 days; algorithm 3, 3 U increase every 3 days; algorithm 4, titration every 3 days according to fasting blood glucose, and algorithm 5, weekly titration 2-8 U based on 3-day mean fasting blood glucose levels.
resultsEleven (5.2%) out of 210 physicians and 180 (90.9%) out of 198 patients preferred algorithm 1 (
conclusionPatients had different preferences compared with physicians. Attention should be given to patients' preferences to increase adherence and improve glycemic control.
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.