Evidence mapPaperPMID 22226276Full record

ArticleJournal of diabetes science and technology2011

Consensus report: the current role of self-monitoring of blood glucose in non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes.

David C Klonoff, Lawrence Blonde, George Cembrowski, Antonio Roberto Chacra, Guillaume Charpentier, Stephen Colagiuri, George Dailey, Robert A Gabbay, Lutz Heinemann, David Kerr and 6 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed
7.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 98 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Why Are We Stuck? Therapeutic Inertia in Diabetes Education.Diabetes spectrum : a publication of the American Diabetes Association · 2020
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors at 13 institutions in 8 countries.

David C KlonoffDiabetes Research Institute, Mills-Peninsula Health Services, San Mateo, California 94401, USA. dklonoff@diabetestechnology.org
Lawrence Blonde
George Cembrowski
Antonio Roberto Chacra
Guillaume Charpentier
Stephen Colagiuri
George Dailey
Robert A Gabbay
Lutz Heinemann
David Kerr
Antonio Nicolucci
William Polonsky
Oliver Schnell
Robert Vigersky
Jean-François Yale
Coalition for Clinical Research-Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose Scientific Board
Centre Hospitalier Sud Francilien · FRHelmholtz Zentrum München · DEHospital São Paulo · BRMario Negri Sud Foundation · ITMcGill University Health Centre · CAMills Peninsula Health Services · USOchsner Medical Center · USPenn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center · USRoyal Bournemouth Hospital · GBScripps Institution of Oceanography · USUniversity of Alberta · CAUniversity of Sydney · AUWalter Reed National Military Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Coalition for Clinical Research--Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose Scientific Board convened a meeting in San Francisco, CA, July 20-21, 2011, to discuss the current practice of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in non-insulin-treated (NIT) type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Twelve physician panel members from academia, practice, and government attended this meeting. These experts came from the United States, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom. In addition, three consultants from Australia, Germany, and the United States contributed to the group's final report. This coalition was organized by Diabetes Technology Society. Self-monitoring of blood glucose was studied from eight perspectives related to patients with NIT T2DM: (1) epidemiological studies; (2) randomized controlled trials (RCT)s and meta-analyses; (3) targets, timing, and frequency of SMBG use; (4) incidence and role of SMBG in preventing hypoglycemia with single-drug regimens and combination regimens consisting of antihyperglycemic agents other than secretagogues and insulin; (5) comparison of SMBG with continuous glucose monitoring; (6) technological capabilities and limitations of SMBG; (7) barriers to appropriate use of SMBG; and (8) methods and end points for appropriate future clinical trials. The panel emphasized recent studies, which reflect the current approach for applying this intervention. Among the participants there was consensus that: SMBG is an established practice for patients with NIT T2DM, and to be most effective, it should be performed in a structured format where information obtained from this measurement is used to guide treatment; New, high-quality efficacy data from RCTs have demonstrated efficacy of SMBG in NIT T2DM in trials reported since 2008; Both patients and health care professionals require education on how to respond to the data for SMBG to be effective; and Additional well-defined studies are needed to assess the benefits and costs of SMBG with end points not limited to hemoglobin A1c.

Indexed as

Blood Glucose Self-MonitoringBlood GlucoseDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2HumansBlood Glucose

Identifiers

PMID22226276
PMCPMC3262725
OpenAlexW2110750999

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.