Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33934550›Full record

ArticlePharmacology research & perspectives2021

Alignment between outcomes and minimal clinically important differences in the Dutch type 2 diabetes mellitus guideline and healthcare professionals' preferences.

Marloes Dankers, Marjorie H J M G Nelissen-Vrancken, Bertien H Hart, Anke C Lambooij, Liset van Dijk, Aukje K Mantel-Teeuwisse

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Pharmacology research & perspectives, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Probiotic Supplementation WithFood science & nutrition · 2026
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Marloes DankersDutch Institute for Rational Use of Medicine, Utrecht, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0971-8388
Marjorie H J M G Nelissen-VranckenDutch Institute for Rational Use of Medicine, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Bertien H HartDepartment of General Practice, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Anke C LambooijDutch Institute for Rational Use of Medicine, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Liset van DijkDepartment of PharmacoTherapy, -Epidemiology and -Economics (PTEE, Groningen Research Institute of Pharmacy, Faculty of Science and Engineering, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Aukje K Mantel-TeeuwisseDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences (UIPS, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Instituut voor Verantwoord Medicijngebruik · NLUniversity of Groningen · NLUtrecht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To evaluate the clinical benefit of new medicines for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), the Dutch guideline committee T2DM in primary care established the importance of outcomes and minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs). The present study used an online questionnaire to investigate healthcare professionals' opinions about the importance of outcomes and preferences for MCIDs. A total of 211 physicians, pharmacists, practice nurses, diabetes nurses, nurse practitioners and physician assistants evaluated the importance of mortality, macro- and microvascular morbidity, HbA1c, body weight, quality of life, (overall) hospital admissions and severe and other hypoglycemia on a 9-point scale. All outcomes were considered critical (mean scores 7-9), except for body weight and other hypoglycemia (mean scores 4-6). Only HbA1c and hospital admissions were valued differently by the guideline committee (not critical). Other relevant outcomes according to the respondents were adverse events, ease of use and costs. Median MCIDs were 4 mmol/mol for HbA1c (guideline: 5 mmol/mol) and 3 kg for body weight (guideline: 5 kg weight gain and 2,5 kg weight loss). Healthcare professionals preferred relative risk reductions of 20% for mortality (guideline: 10%) and macrovascular morbidity (guideline: 25%) and 50% for other hypoglycaemia (guideline: 25%). The MCID of 25% for microvascular morbidity, hospital admissions and severe hypoglycaemia corresponded to the guideline-MCID. Healthcare professionals' preferences were thus comparable to the views of the guideline committee. However, healthcare professionals had a stricter view on the importance of HbA1c and hospital admissions and the MCIDs for mortality and other hypoglycemia.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelAdultDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2FemaleGlycated HemoglobinHealth PersonnelHospitalizationHumansHypoglycemiaHypoglycemic AgentsMaleMiddle AgedMorbidityNetherlandsPractice Guidelines as TopicQuality of LifeGlycated Hemoglobinhemoglobin A1c protein, humanHypoglycemic Agentsclinical relevancediabetes mellitus type 2healthcare professionalsMCIDoutcomespreferences

Identifiers

PMID33934550
PMCPMC8244004
OpenAlexW3158496128

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.