Evidence mapPaperPMID 38524199Full record

ArticlePatient preference and adherence2024

Comparison of Efficacy and Adherence of Patient-Preferred (1 Unit Daily) and ADA/EASD Guideline-Recommended (2 Units Every 3 Days) Basal Insulin Titration Algorithms: Multicenter, Randomized, Clinical Study.

Ling Li, Xiaodan Zhang, Tong Zhang, Liankun Zeng, Mingrun Lin, Yanli Li, Wangen Li

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Ling LiDepartment of Endocrinology, The Second Affiliated Hospital, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Xiaodan ZhangDepartment of Endocrinology, The Second Affiliated Hospital, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.ORCID 0000-0001-8621-1113
Tong ZhangDepartment of Endocrinology, The Third Affiliated Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Liankun ZengDepartment of Endocrinology, The Fourth Affiliated Hospital, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Mingrun LinDepartment of Endocrinology, The Fifth Affiliated Hospital, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Yanli LiDepartment of Endocrinology, The Fifth Affiliated Hospital, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Wangen LiDepartment of Endocrinology, The Second Affiliated Hospital, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.ORCID 0000-0002-1202-1576

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aim: Insulin titration often faces inertia, hindering glycemic control. A patient-centered approach empowers patients to overcome this inertia. This study aims to compare the effectiveness of patient-preferred and guideline-recommended self-titration algorithms in achieving glycemic targets and improving adherence. Methods: Outpatients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who did not respond to oral antihyperglycemic drugs (OAD) were assessed. They were randomly assigned to patient-preferred and guideline-recommended groups. In the patient-preferred group, individuals selected an algorithm to self-adjust their insulin glargine dosage by 2 units every 3 days if the mean fasting blood glucose (FBG) over the past 3 consecutive days was ≥7.0 mmol/L, or by 1 unit daily if the FBG on the same day was ≥7.0 mmol/L. In the guideline-recommended group, insulin glargine was titrated by 2 units every 3 days if the mean FBG over the past 3 consecutive days was ≥7.0 mmol/L. The FBG target was set below <7.0 mmol/L. Results: Thirty-nine participants in the patient-preferred group and 42 in the guideline-recommended group completed the study. The cumulative rates of achieving the FBG target in the patient-preferred group compared to the guideline-recommended group were 69.2% vs 54.8% ( Conclusion: The patient-preferred self-titration algorithm demonstrates a higher rate of reaching glucose targets and improved adherence. Trial Registration Number: ChiCTR2100050805.

Indexed as

adherenceglarginepreferenceself-titrationtype 2 diabetes

Identifiers

PMID38524199
PMCPMC10959243

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.