Systematic review of guideline recommendations for older and frail adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The application of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) across the spectrum of individuals living with diabetes can be challenging, particularly in older adults, where factors such as frailty and multimorbidity exacerbate the complexity of management. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to explore the guidance provided within diabetes CPGs for management of individuals who are older and/or frail, including recommendations for haemoglobin A1C (HbA1c) target and pharmacotherapeutic management. METHODS: A systematic search was completed in Medline and Embase to identify national or international type 2 diabetes CPGs published in the last 10 years. Data extracted included recommendations for HbA1c targets and pharmacotherapy in older and frail adults, frailty screening and deprescribing. Quality of included CPGs was appraised with the AGREE II tool. RESULTS: Twenty-three CPGs were included, within which older adults and frailty were discussed in 21 and 14 CPGs, respectively. Specific HbA1c targets for older and/or frail adults were provided by 15 CPGs, the majority of which suggested a strict target (<7.0%-7.5%) in healthier older adults and a more relaxed target (<8.0%-8.5%) in those who are frail or medically complex. Ten CPGs provided recommendations for insulin therapy and 16 provided recommendations for non-insulin antihyperglycaemic agents that were specific to older and/or frail populations, which primarily focused on minimising risk of hypoglycaemia. CONCLUSION: Most diabetes CPGs recommend strict HbA1c targets in healthier older adults, with more relaxed targets in those living with frailty or medical complexity. However, significant variability exists in pharmacotherapy recommendations and there were proportionately less recommendations for individuals who are frail.
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 | 0.020 | 0.126 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".