ReviewClinical cardiology2019
Opportunities for improving use of evidence-based therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.
Review in Clinical cardiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Computerized clinical decision support system for diabetes in primary care does not improve quality of care: a cluster-randomized controlled trial.Implementation science : IS · 2020 · on this mapTrial
- A risk prediction model for heart failure hospitalization in type 2 diabetes mellitus.Clinical cardiology · 2020Article
- Moving the Dial on Heart Failure Patient Adherence Rates.Patient preference and adherence · 2020Review
- Opportunities for improving use of evidence-based therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.Clinical cardiology · 2019Review
- Diabetes Today.SAGE open nursingArticle
- [Latin American research in heart failure: visual and bibliometric analysis of the last 20 years].Archivos peruanos de cardiologia y cirugia cardiovascularArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Evidence-based therapy that target hyperlipidemia, hypertension, smoking cessation, and weight loss have demonstrated significant benefits in reducing cardiovascular risks and related events. Although the benefit of intensively lowering blood glucose is unclear, newer antidiabetic drugs (glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors) have shown cardiovascular benefits in addition to their antihyperglycemic effect. Yet, studies suggest that recent use of evidence-based therapy and management of cardiovascular risk among individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains largely suboptimal. The following narrative review first identifies barriers to translating research evidence to clinical practice at the levels of provider, health system, patient, and cost. Then it synthesizes previous implementation strategies that addressed multifaceted barriers and attempted to improve care for patients with T2D and CVD. In conclusion, team-based care coordination, reminding systems in combination to pharmacist consultation and patient education, provider education compatible with clinical workflow, and coupled incentives between providers and patients appeared to be effective in reducing cardiovascular risks for patients with T2D and CVD, though the scalability and long-term clinical effect of these strategies as well as the possibility of interventions involving payers and health systems remain uncertain.
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.