ReviewThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2025
Evidence-based tests to monitor adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus in primary care: rapid reviews and consensus process.
Review in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhen monitoring long-term conditions, both over- and undertesting can risk patient harm and increase healthcare costs.
aimTo evaluate the evidence base for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) monitoring tests and develop methods for creating evidence-based testing strategies. DESIGN AND
settingRapid reviews were conducted and a consensus process then used to evaluate the evidence base within primary care settings.
methodThe authors identified tests that are recommended or used commonly to monitor T2DM. Filtering questions were created to examine the rationale for use of each test, which were answered by stepwise rapid reviews of evidence cited by guidelines, systematic reviews, and individual studies. A consensus group of patient representatives and clinicians voted whether tests should be included or excluded based on the evidence or whether further evidence was needed.
resultsOf 15 tests, only haemoglobin A1c, to monitor disease progression and treatment response, and estimated glomerular filtration rate, to detect chronic kidney disease, have a strong evidence base. Based on available evidence and consensus group feedback, routinely testing for fructosamine to monitor disease progression; thyroid function, vitamin B12, ferritin, folate, clotting, bone profile, C-reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and B-type natriuretic peptide; and liver function for adverse treatment effects of metformin was deemed unnecessary. The study found insufficient evidence for lipids and haemoglobin to screen for secondary conditions, and for vitamin B12 to screen for adverse effects in those taking metformin.
conclusionThe study found that the evidence base for most T2DM monitoring tests is weak or absent. Clinicians should avoid non-evidence-based tests unless there are additional clinical indications for testing. Standardised evidence-based testing panels for T2DM and other long-term conditions could reduce unnecessary testing.
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.