ReviewJournal of diabetes science and technology2019
Health Technology Assessments for Flash Glucose Monitoring and How to Use Them in Everyday Clinical Practice.
Review in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Premature and Incomplete Overview of Health Technology Assessments for Flash Glucose Monitoring Leads to Misleading Conclusions.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2019Article
- Response to "Premature and Incomplete Overview of Health Technology Assessments for Flash Glucose Monitoring Leads to Misleading Conclusions".Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVarious health technology assessment (HTA) agencies review new medical devices worldwide, and their recommendations can be useful in guiding clinical decision making. However, different agencies use different processes and methodologies, resulting in variation in recommendations.
objectivesThe objectives were to review full HTAs for a new technology for diabetes management, flash glucose monitoring (FGM), with the aim of summarizing similarities/differences in processes, methodologies, and recommendations from the perspective of everyday clinical practice.
methodsA literature review was conducted using online HTA resources.
resultsFour full HTAs were identified (Canary Islands, France, Catalunya, and Norway); one issued a conditional recommendation for patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) with controlled glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) (Spain; Canary Islands), one issued a broader recommendation for patients with T1DM and T2DM (France), and two reported that there was insufficient evidence to support a recommendation (Spain [Catalunya] and Norway). The most comprehensive and stringent of the available HTAs were those in the Canary Islands and Norway, which included systematic literature reviews (SLRs), consultation with patient groups and clinicians, GRADE evidence quality assessments, and full economic models. Comprehensive HTAs either did not recommend FGM (Norway) or restricted the recommendation to a small subpopulation of the overall diabetes population (Canary Islands).
conclusionHTAs represent a valuable additional resource for clinicians to consider alongside clinical evidence, guidelines, and consensus papers; however, interpreting recommendations requires an understanding of the processes behind these recommendations. In this review, comprehensive HTAs either recommended for a selected subpopulation based on RCT evidence or found insufficient evidence for a recommendation.
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.