ArticleJournal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA2022
Use of expert consensus to improve the diagnosis and management of type 1 diabetes mellitus.
Article in Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA, 2022. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- To do one and to get more: Part II. Diabetes and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver diseases.Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA · 2022Review
- To do one and to get more: Part I. Diabetes and bone.Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) is recognized as a catastrophic disease among the different types of diabetes, it is often confusedly diagnosed in clinical practice and difficult in care. The objective of this study is to reach a multidisciplinary consensus for the establishment of clinical recommendations on T1DM to optimize its undoubtedly diagnostic evaluation and transitional care.
methodsScientific evidence was reviewed by a committee of researchers, based on which recommendations related to T1DM diagnosis were formulated. A two-round method was conducted to compare the opinions of a panel of 32 specialists (adult endocrinologists [53.1%], pediatric endocrinologists [43.8%], a diabetes educator for child and adolescent [3.1%]) on these issues.
resultsThe panel reached consensus on two of the six items discussed. The four items on which no consensus was reached were related to autoantibody detection and age of onset. Up to 80% of the panelists favored items related to the glucagon test and diabetic ketoacidosis history for T1DM diagnosis. Consensus regarding transitional care through diabetes educators was established.
conclusionThe assessment conducted by experts on T1DM showed a high level of professional agreement regarding the proposed diagnostic and transitional care recommendations. A comprehensive analysis of the latest evidence is warranted for the items on which consensus was not established.
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.