ArticleClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR2021
Glycated Albumin for Glycemic Control in T2DM Population: A Multi-Dimensional Evaluation.
Article in ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR, 2021. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical utility of glycated albumin and 1,5-anhydroglucitol in the screening and prediction of diabetes: A multi-center study.World journal of diabetes · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the glycated albumin (GA) introduction implications, as an add-on strategy to traditional glycemic control (Hb1Ac and fasting plasma glucose - FPG) instruments, considering insulin-naïve individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), treated with oral therapies.
methodsA Health Technology Assessment was conducted in Italy, as a multi-dimensional approach useful to validate any innovative technology. The HTA dimensions, derived from the EUnetHTA Core Model, were deployed by means of literature evidence, health economics tools and qualitative questionnaires, filled-in by 15 professionals.
resultsLiterature stated that the GA introduction could lead to a higher number of individuals achieving therapeutic success after 3 months of therapy (97.0% vs 71.6% without GA). From an economic point of view, considering a projection of 1,955,447 T2DM insulin-naïve individuals, potentially treated with oral therapy, GA introduction would imply fewer individuals requiring a therapy switch (-89.44%), with a 1.06% in costs reduction, on annual basis, thus being also the preferable solution from a cost-effectiveness perspective (cost-effectiveness value: 237.74 vs 325.53). According to experts opinions, lower perceptions on GA emerged with regard to equity aspects (0.13 vs 0.72, p-value>0.05), whereas it would improve both individuals (2.17 vs 1.33, p-value=0.000) and caregivers quality of life (1.50 vs 0.83, p-value=0.000). Even if in the short term, GA required additional investments in training courses (-0.80 vs 0.10, p-value = 0.036), in the long run, GA could become the preferable technology (0.30 vs 0.01, p-value=0.018) from an organisational perspective.
conclusionAdding GA to traditional glycaemic control instruments could improve the clinical pathway of individuals with T2DM, leading to economic and organisational advantages for both hospitals and National Healthcare Systems.
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.