Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40791630›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2025

Standardized disease-related measures in diabetes research: results from a global consensus process.

Meena Daivadanam, Kristi Sidney Annerstedt, Rajesh Vedanthan, Louise Maple-Brown, Gary Parker, Maia Ingram, Gina Agarwal, Josefien van Olmen, Renae Kirkham, Kirsten Bobrow and 3 more

Abstract readConsensus Statement
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Meena DaivadanamGlobal Health and Migration Unit, Department of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Kristi Sidney AnnerstedtDepartment of Global Public Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Rajesh VedanthanDepartment of Population Health, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, United States.
Louise Maple-BrownMenzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, NT, Australia.
Gary ParkerGlobal Alliance for Chronic Diseases, London, United Kingdom.
Maia IngramMel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, United States.
Gina AgarwalDepartment of Family Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Josefien van OlmenPrimary and Interdisciplinary Care Antwerp (ELIZA), Department of Family Medicine and Population Health, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
Renae KirkhamMenzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, NT, Australia.
Kirsten BobrowDepartment of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
Francisco Gonzalez-SalazarDivision of Health Sciences, University of Monterrey, Monterrey, Mexico.
Fanny MonnetCenter for Population, Family and Health, Department of Sociology, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
GACD Diabetes Data Standardization Working Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: A lack of disease-related consensus measures for type 2 diabetes interventions is a barrier to comparing interventions across various contexts, as well as to implementation and scale-up. This study aimed to use an expert consensus approach to select disease-related measures for type 2 diabetes to facilitate cross-contextual research, as well as the implementation and scaling-up of initiatives. Methods: The study was conducted using a two-phased cross-sectional design consisting of an online survey among research experts in 17 diabetes projects working in a global context, followed by an online modified Delphi panel comprised of reviewers with domain-specific expertise from different income settings who were not survey participants. Results: Out of 153 measures from 11 domains assessed, 49 were classified as core, 58 as optional, and 46 were excluded. The domains and measures spanned several categories, including demographics, medical history, medication adherence, health behaviors, anthropometric measures, biochemical measures, and quality-of-life-related issues. Conclusion: The core dataset of selected measures in type 2 diabetes may provide a standardized approach for determining which data should be collected. This can facilitate transnational comparisons between or within implementation projects to advance global diabetes research.

Indexed as

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2Cross-Sectional StudiesDelphi TechniqueFemaleGlobal HealthHumansMaleQuality of LifeSurveys and Questionnairesconsensuscross-contextual researchdisease-related measuresimplementation researchstandardizationtype 2 diabetes

Identifiers

PMID40791630
PMCPMC12337128

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.