Continuous Glucose Monitoring Versus Usual Care in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Receiving Multiple Daily Insulin Injections
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Letters3 April 2018Continuous Glucose Monitoring Versus Usual Care in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Receiving Multiple Daily Insulin InjectionsRoy W. Beck, MD, PhD and Tonya D. Riddlesworth, PhDRoy W. Beck, MD, PhDJaeb Center for Health Research, Tampa, Florida (R.W.B., T.D.R.) and Tonya D. Riddlesworth, PhDJaeb Center for Health Research, Tampa, Florida (R.W.B., T.D.R.)Author, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/L17-0706 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail IN RESPONSE:The treatment group difference used to calculate a sample size is the postulated estimate of the true population value and is not intended to indicate what would be considered clinically significant, which is a common misconception. The upper limit of the 95% CI for the observed treatment group difference in HbA1c levels was 0.6%, extending beyond the projected true population value of 0.4%. We believe that a treatment group difference of 0.3% represents a meaningful shift in the HbA1c distributions, as evidenced by our finding that 73% of the CGM group achieved an HbA1c reduction of 0.5% or ...References1. Haak T, Hanaire H, Ajjan R, Hermanns N, Riveline JP, Rayman G. Flash glucose-sensing technology as a replacement for blood glucose monitoring for the management of insulin-treated type 2 diabetes: a multicenter, open-label randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Ther. 2017;8:55-73. [PMID: 28000140] doi:10.1007/s13300-016-0223-6 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar2. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Summary of safety and effectiveness data: Freestyle Libre Pro Flash Glucose Monitoring System. 2016. Accessed at www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf15/p150021b.pdf on 28 October 2017. Google Scholar Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAffiliations: Jaeb Center for Health Research, Tampa, Florida (R.W.B., T.D.R.)Disclosures: Disclosures can be viewed at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M16-2855. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsSee AlsoContinuous Glucose Monitoring Versus Usual Care in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Receiving Multiple Daily Insulin Injections Roy W. Beck , Tonya D. Riddlesworth , Katrina Ruedy , Andrew Ahmann , Stacie Haller , Davida Kruger , Janet B. McGill , William Polonsky , David Price , Stephen Aronoff , Ronnie Aronson , Elena Toschi , Craig Kollman , Richard Bergenstal , and Continuous Glucose Monitoring Versus Usual Care in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Receiving Multiple Daily Insulin Injections Thomas Haak Metrics Cited byIMpact of flash glucose Monitoring in pEople with type 2 Diabetes Inadequately controlled with non‐insulin Antihyperglycaemic ThErapy ( IMMEDIATE ): A randomized controlled trialAcceptance and Effect of Continuous Glucose Monitoring on Discharge From Hospital in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: Open-label, Prospective, Controlled StudyEpisodic Real-Time CGM Use in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes: Results of a Pilot Randomized Controlled TrialPatients with Type 2 Diabetes and Residual Insulin Secretory Capacity Realize Glycemic Benefits from Real-Time Continuous Glucose MonitoringChange in Hemoglobin A1c and Quality of Life with Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring Use by People with Insulin-Treated Diabetes in the Landmark StudyImproved Real-World Glycemic Control With Continuous Glucose Monitoring System Predictive AlertsDiabetes in ageing: pathways for developing the evidence base for clinical guidanceContinuous Glucose Monitoring: Review of an Innovation in Diabetes ManagementGoing beyond HbA1c to understand the benefits of advanced diabetes therapiesDigitale Tools und strukturierte Prozesse verbessern Therapiequalität 3 April 2018Volume 168, Issue 7Page: 526-527KeywordsBody weightDisclosureGlucoseHbA1cHypoglycemiaInsulinPatientsType 2 diabetesWeight gain ePublished: 3 April 2018 Issue Published: 3 April 2018 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2018 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF downloadLoading ...
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».