ReviewCurrent diabetes reports2023
Comparative Analysis of Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Pharmacological Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Latin America.
Review in Current diabetes reports, 2023. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Omission and hallucination prevalence of clinical guidelines in diagnostic large language model outputs.BMJ health & care informatics · 2026Article
- Self-care activities mediate self-perceived burden and depression in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes.World journal of psychiatry · 2025Article
- Investigation of the causal relationship between inflammatory bowel disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus: a Mendelian randomization study.Frontiers in genetics · 2024Article
- Editorial: New trends in type 2 diabetes diagnosis and management in primary care.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewType 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is one of the leading causes of death and disability in the world. The majority of diabetes deaths (> 80%) occur in low- and middle-income countries, which are predominant in Latin America. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to compare the clinical practice guideline (CPG) for the pharmacological management of T2DM in Latin America (LA) with international reference guidelines. RECENT
findingsSeveral LA countries have recently developed CPGs. However, the quality of these guidelines is unknown according to the AGREE II tool and taking as reference three CPGs of international impact: American Diabetes Association (ADA), European Diabetes Association (EASD), and Latin American Diabetes Association (ALAD). Ten CPGs were selected for analysis. The ADA scored > 80% on the AGREE II domains and was selected as the main comparator. Eighty percent of LA CPGs were developed before 2018. Only one was not recommended (all domains < 60%). The CPGs in LA have good quality but are outdated. They have significant gaps compared to the reference. There is a need for improvement, as proposing updates every three years to maintain the best available clinical evidence in all guidelines.
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.