Are clinical practice guidelines on glycemic control in diabetes based on meta-analyses? (notice n° 1920691)
[ vue normale ]
| 000 -LEADER | |
|---|---|
| fixed length control field | 02710cam a2200193 4500500 |
| 005 - DATE AND TIME OF LATEST TRANSACTION | |
| control field | 20260329022526.0 |
| 041 ## - LANGUAGE CODE | |
| Language code of text/sound track or separate title | fre |
| 042 ## - AUTHENTICATION CODE | |
| Authentication code | dc |
| 100 10 - MAIN ENTRY--PERSONAL NAME | |
| Personal name | Kasbi, Merwan |
| Relator term | author |
| 245 00 - TITLE STATEMENT | |
| Title | Are clinical practice guidelines on glycemic control in diabetes based on meta-analyses? |
| 260 ## - PUBLICATION, DISTRIBUTION, ETC. | |
| Date of publication, distribution, etc. | 2025.<br/> |
| 500 ## - GENERAL NOTE | |
| General note | 41 |
| 520 ## - SUMMARY, ETC. | |
| Summary, etc. | Background. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are commonly used tools in the management of chronic conditions such as type 2 diabetes (T2D). In line with the principles of evidence-based medicine (EBM), CPGs should be based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This study evaluates the extent to which CPGs on glycemic control in type 2 diabetes draw on existing meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials to justify their recommendations, and whether they use the GRADE approach for quality assessment. Methods. Building on a previous study assessing the quality of CPGs (Tudrej et al. 2020), an additional study was conducted, including guidelines published between January 2015 and May 2021. Meta-analyses were selected from a systematic review by Rodriguez et al., which focused on the benefits and risks of intensive glycemic control. CPGs were categorized as “EBM-compliant” if they cited or included meta-analyses covering clinically relevant, patient-centered outcomes: total mortality, macrovascular and microvascular complications, and symptomatic hypoglycemia. Use of the GRADE approach was also examined. Results. Of the 28 CPGs analyzed, only 14% (4/28) were “EBM-compliant,” citing relevant meta-analyses to support their recommendations. Two-thirds (67%) of CPGs did not cite any of the 10 key meta-analyses. GRADE was used by 21% (6/28) of CPGs, of which only 2 were also “EBM-compliant.” Discussion. The majority of CPGs did not incorporate high-level evidence from meta-analyses of RCTs, raising concerns about the rigor and transparency of these guidelines. The lack of systematic integration of evidence could affect the quality of clinical decisions, suggesting a need for improved methodology in the development of CPGs related to glycemic control in type 2 diabetes. Conclusion. This study reveals significant gaps in the evidence base for CPGs on type 2 diabetes, highlighting the need for better adherence to EBM principles and the systematic use of robust meta-analyses in guideline development. |
| 700 10 - ADDED ENTRY--PERSONAL NAME | |
| Personal name | Saouli, Reda |
| Relator term | author |
| 700 10 - ADDED ENTRY--PERSONAL NAME | |
| Personal name | Dibao-Dina, Clarisse |
| Relator term | author |
| 700 10 - ADDED ENTRY--PERSONAL NAME | |
| Personal name | Boussageon, Rémy |
| Relator term | author |
| 786 0# - DATA SOURCE ENTRY | |
| Note | Médecine | 21 | 1 | 2025-03-03 | p. 22-28 | 1777-2044 |
| 856 41 - ELECTRONIC LOCATION AND ACCESS | |
| Uniform Resource Identifier | <a href="https://stm.cairn.info/revue-medecine-2025-1-page-22?lang=en&redirect-ssocas=7080">https://stm.cairn.info/revue-medecine-2025-1-page-22?lang=en&redirect-ssocas=7080</a> |
Pas d'exemplaire disponible.
Réseaux sociaux