ArticleJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2026
Shared Decision Making: Aids and Promotion in Clinical Practice Guidelines for Type 2 Diabetes Treatment.
Article in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionType 2 diabetes (T2D) is a major global health issue due to its rising prevalence and significant burden in terms of morbidity, mortality, and economic impact. Although the availability of Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) aimed at optimising T2D management, the complexity of therapeutic options and the necessity of tailoring treatment to individual patient preferences pose ongoing challenges. Shared Decision Making (SDM) and the high-quality decision aids have been shown to enhance patient understanding and engagement in medical decisions. This study aimed to assess the presence of decision aids and the promotion of SDM within international and national CPGs for T2D treatment.
methodsFifty-two CPGs identified in a prior systematic review were re-evaluated. Following the application of exclusion criteria and review of updates, 33 CPGs from 20 countries were included. The analysis focused on identifying high-quality decision aids-defined as those providing absolute risk estimates for therapeutic options-and on detecting explicit support for SDM using predefined key terms.
resultsNo CPGs included decision aids that met the criteria for high quality. However, 73% acknowledged the importance of patient values and preferences, incorporating at least one reference to SDM. Despite this, no tools were provided to facilitate the practical implementation of SDM. This finding underscores a persistent gap between the theoretical recognition of SDM and its operational integration into CPGs. DISCUSSION: These findings suggest that although the role of SDM is theoretically embraced, its practical application remains insufficient. Efforts from major guideline-developing organisations to improve methodological inclusion of patient-centred elements are encouraging, yet much progress is needed. Future guideline development must prioritise the integration of rigorously designed decision aids to truly support informed, value-based medical decisions in T2D care.
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.