Pranav M Patel, Richard M Abaniel, Natasha Dogra, Charles B Lo, Marie A Frazzitta, Naunihal S Virdi
{"title":"时间范围内的趋势——相关出版物和临床试验：文献计量学综述","authors":"Pranav M Patel, Richard M Abaniel, Natasha Dogra, Charles B Lo, Marie A Frazzitta, Naunihal S Virdi","doi":"10.2337/ds22-0085","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The goal of this article was to describe trends in publications (including conference abstracts) and clinical trials that report on glycemic time in range (TIR).</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>Reviewed databases included but were not limited to MEDLINE and Embase. Clinical trial registries were also sourced.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>All studies reporting TIR published between 2010 and 2021 were included. Clinical trials reporting TIR that started in or after 2010 were also included. Non-English publications, abstracts, and clinical trials were excluded. Book chapters, nonhuman studies, and studies not reporting TIR were excluded.</p><p><strong>Data extraction: </strong>Manuscript/abstract category, publication year, study region, interventional versus observational role of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), and clinical trial start and completion dates were captured. Glycemic outcomes reported in publications or trials, including TIR as a primary outcome, A1C, time below range (TBR), and time above range (TAR), were also captured.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 373 clinical trials, 531 publications, and 620 abstracts were included in the review. The number of trials, publications, and abstracts reporting TIR significantly increased, particularly between 2018 and 2021, during which time the number of clinical trials, publications, and conference abstracts reporting TIR increased by 6-fold, 12-fold, and 4.5-fold, respectively. About 35-44% of studies reported TIR as a primary outcome. Approximately 54% of clinical trials, 47% of publications, and 47% of conference abstracts reported the role of CGM to be observational. TBR was reported more often than TAR.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The marked increase in the number of trials, publications, and abstracts reporting TIR highlights the increasing significance and acceptance of TIR as an outcome measure in diabetes management.</p>","PeriodicalId":39737,"journal":{"name":"Diabetes Spectrum","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10654124/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Trends in Time in Range-Related Publications and Clinical Trials: A Bibliometric Review.\",\"authors\":\"Pranav M Patel, Richard M Abaniel, Natasha Dogra, Charles B Lo, Marie A Frazzitta, Naunihal S Virdi\",\"doi\":\"10.2337/ds22-0085\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The goal of this article was to describe trends in publications (including conference abstracts) and clinical trials that report on glycemic time in range (TIR).</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>Reviewed databases included but were not limited to MEDLINE and Embase. Clinical trial registries were also sourced.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>All studies reporting TIR published between 2010 and 2021 were included. Clinical trials reporting TIR that started in or after 2010 were also included. Non-English publications, abstracts, and clinical trials were excluded. Book chapters, nonhuman studies, and studies not reporting TIR were excluded.</p><p><strong>Data extraction: </strong>Manuscript/abstract category, publication year, study region, interventional versus observational role of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), and clinical trial start and completion dates were captured. Glycemic outcomes reported in publications or trials, including TIR as a primary outcome, A1C, time below range (TBR), and time above range (TAR), were also captured.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 373 clinical trials, 531 publications, and 620 abstracts were included in the review. The number of trials, publications, and abstracts reporting TIR significantly increased, particularly between 2018 and 2021, during which time the number of clinical trials, publications, and conference abstracts reporting TIR increased by 6-fold, 12-fold, and 4.5-fold, respectively. About 35-44% of studies reported TIR as a primary outcome. Approximately 54% of clinical trials, 47% of publications, and 47% of conference abstracts reported the role of CGM to be observational. TBR was reported more often than TAR.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The marked increase in the number of trials, publications, and abstracts reporting TIR highlights the increasing significance and acceptance of TIR as an outcome measure in diabetes management.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":39737,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Diabetes Spectrum\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10654124/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Diabetes Spectrum\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2337/ds22-0085\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/5/11 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diabetes Spectrum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2337/ds22-0085","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/5/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
Trends in Time in Range-Related Publications and Clinical Trials: A Bibliometric Review.
Objective: The goal of this article was to describe trends in publications (including conference abstracts) and clinical trials that report on glycemic time in range (TIR).
Data sources: Reviewed databases included but were not limited to MEDLINE and Embase. Clinical trial registries were also sourced.
Study selection: All studies reporting TIR published between 2010 and 2021 were included. Clinical trials reporting TIR that started in or after 2010 were also included. Non-English publications, abstracts, and clinical trials were excluded. Book chapters, nonhuman studies, and studies not reporting TIR were excluded.
Data extraction: Manuscript/abstract category, publication year, study region, interventional versus observational role of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), and clinical trial start and completion dates were captured. Glycemic outcomes reported in publications or trials, including TIR as a primary outcome, A1C, time below range (TBR), and time above range (TAR), were also captured.
Results: A total of 373 clinical trials, 531 publications, and 620 abstracts were included in the review. The number of trials, publications, and abstracts reporting TIR significantly increased, particularly between 2018 and 2021, during which time the number of clinical trials, publications, and conference abstracts reporting TIR increased by 6-fold, 12-fold, and 4.5-fold, respectively. About 35-44% of studies reported TIR as a primary outcome. Approximately 54% of clinical trials, 47% of publications, and 47% of conference abstracts reported the role of CGM to be observational. TBR was reported more often than TAR.
Conclusion: The marked increase in the number of trials, publications, and abstracts reporting TIR highlights the increasing significance and acceptance of TIR as an outcome measure in diabetes management.
期刊介绍：
The mission of Diabetes Spectrum: From Research to Practice is to assist health care professionals in the development of strategies to individualize treatment and diabetes self-management education for improved quality of life and diabetes control. These goals are achieved by presenting review as well as original, peer-reviewed articles on topics in clinical diabetes management, professional and patient education, nutrition, behavioral science and counseling, educational program development, and advocacy. In each issue, the FROM RESEARCH TO PRACTICE section explores, in depth, a diabetes care topic and provides practical application of current research findings.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
