ArticleEndocrine2026
Knowledge, perceptions and attitudes toward diabetes care in oncology: a pilot survey across specialties (DiaLog Study).
Article in Endocrine, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundManaging diabetes in patients with cancer requires balancing oncologic priorities with safe glycemic targets. Evidence describing how trainees from different specialties approach this interface is limited.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional pilot survey among 111 physicians (Internal Medicine n = 50; Endocrinology n = 19; Medical Oncology n = 42). The questionnaire comprised four knowledge (T/F), eight perception, and four attitude items. Scores were computed as total knowledge (0–4), perception (0–32), and a composite attitude score (6–14) formed by summing the treatment attitude subscale (0–12) and the steroid attitude item (0–4) after harmonizing item directions. Non-parametric tests compared groups; associations used Spearman’s rho and ordinal/linear regression. Reliability was assessed with Cronbach’s alpha.
resultsMedian knowledge, perception, and composite attitude scores were 2, 18, and 11, respectively; no overall differences were observed across specialties. Perception items differed for the cardiovascular impact of poor glycemic control in patients with short life expectancy (p = 0.037), the safety of short-term steroids in advanced disease (p = 0.0017), and the potential harm of steroids with immunotherapy (p = 0.048). Avoidance of steroids in patients with uncontrolled glycemia differed by specialty (p = 0.0014). Correlations showed knowledge modestly associated with perception (ρ = 0.348) and attitude (ρ = 0.212), while perception more strongly associated with attitude (ρ = 0.437). In multivariable models, each 1-point increase in knowledge independently predicted preference for metformin as first choice and for strict control in metastatic disease, and—together with perception—predicted avoidance of steroids; perception also predicted avoidance of aggressive control in limited life expectancy. Cronbach’s α was 0.77 overall and 0.76 for the treatment subscale.
conclusionsKnowledge levels were broadly comparable across specialties, but perceptions and attitudes diverged, especially regarding steroids and end-of-life glycemic intensity, highlighting a need for interdisciplinary education and consensus to harmonize onco-diabetology practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41629534What 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.