Adoption of the ADA/EASD guidelines in 10 Eastern and Southern European countries: Physician survey and good clinical practice recommendations from an international expert panel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Evidence from cardiovascular outcomes trials (CVOTs) of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors was reflected in the most recent guidelines from the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). The aim of the present study was to assess the adoption of the ADA/EASD guidelines in a convenience sample of physicians from Eastern and Southern Europe, the barriers to the implementation of these guidelines and the measures needed to facilitate their implementation. METHODS: Attendees at two international diabetes conferences could volunteer to respond to a fully anonymous survey. Responses were analysed descriptively and a panel of experts from around the region was consulted to interpret the survey results. RESULTS: Responses (n = 96) from 10 countries were analysed. Most participants (63.4%) considered the ADA/EASD guidelines fundamental to their practice. All respondents saw the value of the CVOT-based ADA/EASD recommendations and 77-80% generally implemented them. Measures suggested to improve adherence to the ADA/EASD guidelines included aligning reimbursement policy with the guidelines (54.4%), publishing guidelines in a simple and concise form (42.4%) and translating guidelines into local languages (33.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Aligning reimbursement with recent evidence and providing short summaries of the ADA/EASD guidelines in local languages could facilitate physician adherence.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".