ArticleOpen access Macedonian journal of medical sciences2019
Physicians' Perspective on Diabetes Mellitus Management within the Context of Personalized Medicine Era in Tabuk Governorate, Saudi Arabia.
Article in Open access Macedonian journal of medical sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Implementation of precision medicine in treating non-communicable diseases: a systematic review.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Pooled it
- From one size fits all to a tailored approach: integrating precision medicine into medical education.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Clinicians' Perceptions towards Precision Medicine Tools for Cardiovascular Disease Risk Stratification in South Africa.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Patients' and professionals' views related to ethical issues in precision medicine: a mixed research synthesis.BMC medical ethics · 2021Review
- Knowledge, Attitudes, and Perceived Barriers toward Genetic Testing and Pharmacogenomics among Healthcare Workers in the United Arab Emirates: A Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of personalized medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMinimizing the number of therapy failures and decreasing the diabetic complications can be achieved by the application of personalising diabetes therapy, based on patient`s genetics, however, currently, personalised Medicine (PM) in diabetes mellitus management is not extensively applied.
aimTo assess the knowledge, attitudes, and willingness of physicians in practising of PM in diabetes management.
methodsA cross-sectional analytical study was implemented among 126 physicians from six different governmental hospitals and 12 primary care centres selected by the stratified random sampling technique in the Tabuk region of Saudi Arabia. A structured self-administered questionnaire was utilised for data collection. A simple scoring system (scale of 5 points) was utilised to assess knowledge and willingness. Likert scale was applied to evaluate the attitudes towards practising PM in DM management by the fixed choice response formats.
resultsThe majority of the participants (97.62%) claimed not receiving any PM and/or genomic medicine training. Most of them (82.54%) expressed unsatisfactory knowledge concerning personalised DM, whereas the medium level of attitudes was reported among 57.14% of them and a good level of willingness had been observed among 76.98% of the physicians.
conclusionEmphasizing on essential personalised DM management knowledge aspects should be given a considerable priority. Fortunately, positive attitudes and goodwill of physicians towards PM are encouraging and should be supported by policymakers.
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.