ArticleJournal of diabetes and metabolic disorders2022
Rating the importance of outcomes from diabetes trials. A survey of patients' and doctors' opinions.
Article in Journal of diabetes and metabolic disorders, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine learning driven diabetes care using predictive-prescriptive analytics for personalized medication prescription.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Development of an item bank and outcome importance survey for the Australian and New Zealand Bariatric Surgery Registry.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2025Article
- Gout: An Overlooked Disease in Patients With Diabetes? A Danish Prospective Cohort Study With 2 Years of Follow-Up.Clinical diabetes : a publication of the American Diabetes Association · 2025Article
- Patient and healthcare practitioner evaluation of patient-reported outcomes in bariatric surgery - a modified Delphi study.International journal of obesity (2005) · 2024Article
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
Purpose: To investigate and compare how patients with diabetes mellitus and doctors rate the importance of outcomes used as part of composite endpoints in clinical diabetes trials. Secondly, to compare the ratings of outcomes between patients with low and high education. Methods: Using a pre-piloted questionnaire, patients with diabetes and doctors working with diabetes were asked to rate the importance of 36 different outcomes commonly used in trials assessing intervention effects in patients with diabetes. The respondents were asked to rate individual outcomes as being either critical, of major importance, of moderate importance, or of minor importance. Results: The study population consisted of 139 patients with a mean age of 56.6 years and an average duration of diabetes for 13.6 years and 45 doctors with a mean time of practice of 19.6 years. There was no difference between patients' and doctors' rating of risk of mortality and non-fatal myocardial infarction, and percutaneous coronary intervention (all p-values > 0.34). Non-fatal stroke, admission for heart failure or angina was perceived more severely by patients compared to doctors (all p-values < 0.03). Patients rated risk of foot-ulcers, amputations and quality of life as more important compared to doctors (p-values < 0.01). Conclusion: The current study suggest that patients and doctors weigh some diabetic outcomes used as part of composite endpoints in clinical diabetes trials differently. These findings call for more studies on patient reported outcomes and patient education for improved personal care. Highlights: • We performed this study to assess how patients and practicing physicians rate the importance of outcomes commonly used in diabetes trials.• We found that patients and doctors rate the importance of some outcomes used in clinical diabetes trials differently.• These findings suggest that shared decision making is pivotal when taking clinical decisions and that future diabetes studies incorporate end points relevant to both patients and clinicians and do not combine end points which are not equally important.
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.