Evidence-based tests to monitor adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus in primary care: rapid reviews and consensus process.

IF 5.3 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Martha Maria Christine Elwenspoek, Rachel O'Donnell, Joni Jackson, Sarah Dawson, Katie Charlwood, Alastair D Hay, Jessica Watson, Penny Whiting
{"title":"Evidence-based tests to monitor adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus in primary care: rapid reviews and consensus process.","authors":"Martha Maria Christine Elwenspoek, Rachel O'Donnell, Joni Jackson, Sarah Dawson, Katie Charlwood, Alastair D Hay, Jessica Watson, Penny Whiting","doi":"10.3399/BJGP.2024.0744","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Background When monitoring long-term conditions both over- and undertesting risk patient harm and increased healthcare costs. Aim To evaluate the evidence base for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) monitoring tests and develop methods for creating evidence-based testing strategies. Design and setting Rapid reviews, consensus process. Primary care. Method We identified tests that are recommended or used commonly to monitor T2DM. We created filtering questions to examine the rationale of each test, which were answered by stepwise rapid reviews of evidence cited by guidelines, systematic reviews, and individual studies. A consensus group of patient representatives and clinicians voted whether tests should be included or excluded based on the evidence or whether further evidence was needed. Results Of 15 tests, only HbA1c, to monitor disease progression and treatment response, and eGFR, to detect chronic kidney disease, have a strong evidence base. Based on available evidence and consensus group feedback, routinely testing for fructosamine to monitor disease progression; thyroid function, vitamin B12, ferritin, folate, clotting, bone profile, C-reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and B-type natriuretic peptide; and liver function for adverse treatment effects of metformin was deemed unnecessary. We found insufficient evidence for vitamin B12 to screen for adverse treatment effects, and lipids and haemoglobin for secondary conditions. Conclusion We found that the evidence-base for most T2DM monitoring tests is weak or absent. Clinicians should avoid non-evidence based tests unless there are additional clinical indications for testing. Standardised evidence-based testing panels for T2DM and other long-term conditions could reduce unnecessary testing.</p>","PeriodicalId":55320,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of General Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of General Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2024.0744","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background When monitoring long-term conditions both over- and undertesting risk patient harm and increased healthcare costs. Aim To evaluate the evidence base for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) monitoring tests and develop methods for creating evidence-based testing strategies. Design and setting Rapid reviews, consensus process. Primary care. Method We identified tests that are recommended or used commonly to monitor T2DM. We created filtering questions to examine the rationale of each test, which were answered by stepwise rapid reviews of evidence cited by guidelines, systematic reviews, and individual studies. A consensus group of patient representatives and clinicians voted whether tests should be included or excluded based on the evidence or whether further evidence was needed. Results Of 15 tests, only HbA1c, to monitor disease progression and treatment response, and eGFR, to detect chronic kidney disease, have a strong evidence base. Based on available evidence and consensus group feedback, routinely testing for fructosamine to monitor disease progression; thyroid function, vitamin B12, ferritin, folate, clotting, bone profile, C-reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and B-type natriuretic peptide; and liver function for adverse treatment effects of metformin was deemed unnecessary. We found insufficient evidence for vitamin B12 to screen for adverse treatment effects, and lipids and haemoglobin for secondary conditions. Conclusion We found that the evidence-base for most T2DM monitoring tests is weak or absent. Clinicians should avoid non-evidence based tests unless there are additional clinical indications for testing. Standardised evidence-based testing panels for T2DM and other long-term conditions could reduce unnecessary testing.

在初级保健中监测成人2型糖尿病的循证试验:快速回顾和共识过程
背景:在监测长期病情时,检测过度和检测不足都有可能对患者造成伤害,并增加医疗成本。目的评价2型糖尿病(T2DM)监测试验的证据基础,探讨建立循证检测策略的方法。设计和设置快速审查,达成共识的过程。初级护理。方法选择推荐或常用的T2DM监测方法。我们创建了筛选问题来检查每个测试的基本原理,并通过对指南、系统评价和个体研究引用的证据的逐步快速回顾来回答这些问题。由患者代表和临床医生组成的共识小组投票决定是否应根据证据纳入或排除检测,或者是否需要进一步的证据。结果在15项检测中,只有监测疾病进展和治疗反应的HbA1c和检测慢性肾脏疾病的eGFR具有强有力的证据基础。根据现有证据和共识组反馈,常规检测果糖胺以监测疾病进展;甲状腺功能、维生素B12、铁蛋白、叶酸、凝血、骨谱、c反应蛋白、红细胞沉降率、b型利钠肽;而肝功能对二甲双胍的不良治疗效果被认为是不必要的。我们发现维生素B12不足以筛查不良治疗效果,脂质和血红蛋白不足以筛查继发性疾病。结论我们发现大多数T2DM监测试验的证据基础薄弱或缺乏。临床医生应避免无证据基础的检测,除非有额外的临床指征需要检测。针对2型糖尿病和其他长期疾病的标准化循证检测小组可以减少不必要的检测。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
British Journal of General Practice
British Journal of General Practice 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
10.20%
发文量
681
期刊介绍: The British Journal of General Practice is an international journal publishing research, editorials, debate and analysis, and clinical guidance for family practitioners and primary care researchers worldwide. BJGP began in 1953 as the ‘College of General Practitioners’ Research Newsletter’, with the ‘Journal of the College of General Practitioners’ first appearing in 1960. Following the change in status of the College, the ‘Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners’ was launched in 1967. Three editors later, in 1990, the title was changed to the ‘British Journal of General Practice’. The journal is commonly referred to as the ''BJGP'', and is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信