Evidence mapPaperPMID 16609091Full record

ReviewJAMA2006

Assessing glycemia in diabetes using self-monitoring blood glucose and hemoglobin A1c.

Christopher D Saudek, Rachel L Derr, Rita R Kalyani

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in JAMA, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 103 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
103citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
17.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

103 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 371 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Diabetes and total knee arthroplasty: A nationwide analysis of complications, hospitalization outcomes and revision burden.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

43 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Christopher D SaudekDivision of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Md, USA. csaudek@jhu.edu
Rachel L Derr
Rita R Kalyani
Johns Hopkins University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextWith the increasing prevalence of diabetes, successful management of blood glucose control is increasingly important. Current approaches to assessing glycemia include the use of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c).

objectivesTo assess the evidence underlying the use of these 2 modalities, to evaluate confounders and sources of error in each test, to describe upcoming developments, and to reach evidence-based conclusions on their optimal use. DATA SOURCES, STUDY SELECTION, AND DATA EXTRACTION: Reports identified from MEDLINE searches (1976-2005) using relevant terms were selected for quality and relevance to the stated questions. Particular attention was paid to larger cohort studies, clinical trials, meta-analyses, and established recommendations. DATA SYNTHESIS: If used properly SMBG gives an acceptably accurate reflection of immediate plasma glucose levels. Study results vary, but in general, the evidence supports a positive effect of regular SMBG for improving glycemia, particularly in individuals treated with insulin. The best timing of SMBG and its frequency are controversial issues, but the clinical recommendation is for regular monitoring with frequency depending on the treatment and the instability of glycemia. In the relatively near term, SMBG could gradually be replaced by continuous glucose monitoring. HbA1c measures long-term glycemic control, reflecting a time-weighted mean over the previous 3 to 4 months. There are a number of physiologic and methodologic confounders that can affect HbA1c, but standardization of assays has been well established. The main value of HbA1c is its use as a predictor of diabetic complications and the proven effect of improved control of HbA1c on complication risk. A reasonable target value for HbA1c is less than 7%. A new method for measuring HbA1c may cause significant changes in the recommended levels, the numbers reported, and even the name of the test.

conclusionAssessing glycemia in diabetes can be a challenge, but approaches are available that promote successful management of blood glucose and may thereby lead to a significant reduction in morbidity and mortality related to diabetes.

Indexed as

Blood Glucose Self-MonitoringDiabetes MellitusGlycated HemoglobinHumansHyperglycemiaHypoglycemiaGlycated Hemoglobin

Identifiers

PMID16609091
OpenAlexW2128247875

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.