Self‐monitoring of blood glucose in patients with diabetes who do not use insulin—are guidelines evidence‐based?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To evaluate if clinical practice guideline recommendations regarding self-monitoring of blood glucose in patients with diabetes not using insulin follow the principles of evidence-based medicine. METHODS: After a search from 1999 to 2011, 18 clinical practice guidelines were included. Recommendations regarding self-monitoring of blood glucose were graded on a scale from one (strongly against self-monitoring) to four (strongly in favour of self-monitoring) and compared with the similarly graded conclusions of systematic reviews that were cited by the clinical practice guidelines. We also investigated how clinical practice guideline characteristics, for example funding sources, and quality of references cited could be related to the guideline recommendations. RESULTS: The clinical practice guidelines cited in total 15 systematic reviews, 14 randomized controlled trials, 33 non-randomized controlled trials papers and 18 clinical practice guidelines or position statements. The clinical practice guideline recommendations had an average grade of 3.4 (range 2.0-4.0). Higher grades were seen for clinical practice guidelines that acknowledged industry funding (mean value 4.0) or were issued by organizations depending on private funding (mean value 3.6 vs. 3.0 for governmental funding). The conclusions of the 15 systematic reviews had a mean grade of 2.2 (range 1.0-3.8). Systematic reviews with low grades were less cited. In total, 21 randomized controlled trials were included in the systematic reviews. Approximately half of these evaluated an educational intervention where the effect of self-monitoring of blood glucose could not be clearly isolated. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical practice guidelines were more in favour of self-monitoring use than the systematic reviews that were cited. The citation practice was non-systematic and industry funding seemingly led to a more positive attitude towards use of self-monitoring of blood glucose.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".