Citations

Objective: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in improving glycemic control and reducing hypoglycemia compared to self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG). Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, Web of Science, and Scopus for randomized trials of adults and children with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T1DM or T2DM). Pairs of reviewers independently selected studies, assessed methodological quality, and extracted data. Meta-analytic estimates of treatment effects were generated using a random-effects model. Results: Nineteen trials were eligible and provided data for meta-analysis. Overall, CGM was associated with a significant reduction in mean hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c; weighted mean difference (WMD) of −0.27% (95% confidence interval [CI] −0.44 to −0.10)]. This was true for adults with T1DM as well as T2DM [WMD −0.50% (95% CI −0.69 to −0.30) and −0.70 (95% CI, −1.14 to −0.27), respectively]. No significant effect was noted in children and adolescents. There was no significant difference in HbA1c reduction between studies of real-time versus non-real-time devices (WMD −0.22%, 95% CI, −0.59 to 0.15 versus −0.30%, 95% CI, −0.49 to −0.10; p for interaction 0.71). The quality of evidence was moderate due to imprecision, suggesting increased risk for bias. Data for the incidence of severe or nocturnal hypoglycemia were sparse and imprecise. In studies that reported patient satisfaction, users felt confident about the device and gave positive reviews. Conclusion: Continuous glucose monitoring seems to help improve glycemic control in adults with T1DM and T2DM. The effect on hypoglycemia incidence is imprecise and unclear. Larger trials with longer follow-up are needed to assess the efficacy of CGM in reducing patient-important complications without significantly increasing the burden of care for patients with diabetes.

Chronic conditions are the most important cause of morbidity, mortality and health expense in the USA. Comparative effectiveness research (CER) seeks to provide evidence supporting the relative value of alternative courses of action. This research often concludes with estimates of the likelihood of desirable and undesirable outcomes associated with each option. Patients with chronic conditions should engage with their clinicians in deciding which of these options best fits their goals and context. In practicing shared decision-making (SDM), clinicians and patients should make use of CER to inform their deliberations. In these ways, SDM and CER are interrelated. SDM translates CER into patient-centered practice, while CER provides the backbone evidence about options and outcomes in SDM interventions. In this review, we explore the potential for a SDM–CER synergy in improving healthcare for patients with chronic conditions.

AbstractBackgroundVarious components of the skin biopsy requisition form (SBRF) may contribute to accurate dermatopathologic interpretation.MethodsA search of electronic databases, including those of Ovid MEDLINE In‐Process & Other Non‐Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus, was conducted from inception to October 2011. Two authors independently screened all articles for eligibility. Inclusion criteria required material to represent original studies on skin biopsy and pathology requisition forms. Data abstracted from each article that met the inclusion criteria included details of the study characteristics, including the study location, type of pathology practice, specimen type, type of dermatoses, medical specialty of the requesting provider, suggested clinical components, and format of the SBRF.ResultsOf 32 titles and abstracts reviewed, seven articles were included. From these, we determined that dermatologists, general practitioners and surgeons completed SBRFs. Commonly included components were patient demographics and requesting clinician characteristics. Clinical information and differential diagnosis were provided in 4% (two of 48 surgeons) to 36% (18 of 50 dermatologists) of requisitions. Most SBRFs did not include information on specimen type, clinical morphology, photographs or clinical history.ConclusionsThe limited medical literature demonstrates variation in the content of SBRFs across clinicians and practices, and suggests an important target for improvement in the quality of communication and dermatologic care by requesting clinicians and pathologists.

Context: Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a prevalent disorder that affects women of childbearing age and may be related to obesity and insulin resistance. Objective: The purpose of this systematic review was to appraise the evidence of the impact of lifestyle modification (LSM) interventions on outcomes of women with PCOS. Data Sources: Sources included Ovid Medline, OVID Embase, OVID Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, PsycINFO, and CINAHL (up to January 2011). Study Selection: We included randomized controlled trials that enrolled woman of any age with PCOS who received LSM and compared them against women who received no intervention, minimal intervention, or metformin. Data Extraction: Two authors performed the data extraction independently. Data Synthesis: We included 9 trials enrolling 583 women with a high loss to follow-up rate, lack of blinding, and short follow-up. Compared with minimal intervention, LSM significantly reduced fasting blood glucose (weighted mean difference, −2.3 mg/dL; 95% confidence interval, −4.5 to −0.1, I2 = 72%, P = .04) and fasting blood insulin (weighted mean difference, −2.1 μU/mL, 95% confidence interval, −3.3 to −1.0, I2 = 0%, P < .001). Changes in body mass index were associated with changes in fasting blood glucose (P < .001). Metformin was not significantly better than LSM in improving blood glucose or insulin levels. We found no significant effect of LSM on pregnancy rate, and the effect on hirsutism was unclear. Conclusions: The available evidence suggests that LSM reduces fasting blood glucose and insulin levels in women with PCOS. Metformin has similar effects. Translation of these short-term effects to patient-important outcomes, beyond diabetes prevention, remains uncertain.

Background Traditionally patients are not involved in the development of clinical guidelines, and most current panels include only clinical and methodological experts. We therefore know little about what patients (or healthy lay people) would have recommended if they were provided with the same evidence as experts. Objectives Develop a prototype ‘Recommendation-making game’ which can be used for: (1) Exploring patients and lay people’s reasoning when facing the same evidence as an expert guideline panel; (2) assess whether they give similar value to the outcomes or burdens if the decision of making a recommendation for a patient group was up to them; (3) determine whether their recommendation concur with what they would have decided for themselves. Methods We used game technology to make a generic prototype of an online “Recommendation-making game”, based on structured guidelines published in the MAGIC (Making Grade the Irresistible Choice) application. This approach will enable us to automatically make online surveys out of any guideline/recommendation in the system. In making it into a game we believe people would want to participate, and we can potentially harvest information from a large group of people. The game can also be used in small focus groups for qualitative data collection. Results We will display the prototype at the conference. Discussion Does clinical experts reasoning effects that of patient representatives in a guideline panel? Implications for Guideline Developers/Users GAME-IT explores a new way of harvesting information from patients (or healthy lay people) regarding treatment recommendations.

Background In 2005, the Endocrine Society (TES) adopted the GRADE system of developing clinical practice guidelines. This system facilitates the formulation of evidence-based recommendations by explicitly describing the confidence in estimates (quality of evidence) and strength of each recommendation. Objectives To describe and characterise the relationship between confidence in estimates and strength of recommendation in TES guidelines. Methods We included all published TES guidelines between 2005 (when TES started using GRADE) and 2011. Independently and in duplicate, reviewers extracted, for each recommendation: disease area, confidence in estimates and design of the studies considered, and strength of recommendation. In strong recommendations with low quality of we developed and applied a taxonomy of appropriate recommendations and identified those we considered inappropriate. Results Most of the 357 recommendations issued were supported by evidence warranting low or very low confidence in estimates (256, 72%). Evidence cited in support of these recommendations came exclusively from observational studies in 233 recommendations (65%). Most recommendations were strong (206, 58%); of these, 121 (59%) were supported by evidence warranting low or very low confidence in estimates. In 101/121 (83%), we identified a compelling rationale for the recommendations; in 20 (17%), we did not. Conclusions Most TES strong recommendation based on low quality evidence are justified and appropriate, but a substantial proportion are not. Implications for Guideline Developers Guideline developers should carefully justify any strong recommendations based on low confidence in effect estimates.