Commentary: Glucose Self-monitoring in Non-Insulin-Treated Patients With Type 2 Diabetes in Primary Care Settings: A Randomized Trial
The result's identifiers
Result code in IS VaVaI
<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216208%3A11130%2F18%3A10376741" target="_blank" >RIV/00216208:11130/18:10376741 - isvavai.cz</a>
Alternative codes found
RIV/68407700:21460/18:00329628 RIV/68407700:21730/18:00329628 RIV/00064203:_____/18:10376741
Result on the web
<a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2018.00389" target="_blank" >https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2018.00389</a>
DOI - Digital Object Identifier
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2018.00389" target="_blank" >10.3389/fendo.2018.00389</a>
Alternative languages
Result language
angličtina
Original language name
Commentary: Glucose Self-monitoring in Non-Insulin-Treated Patients With Type 2 Diabetes in Primary Care Settings: A Randomized Trial
Original language description
The articles published by Young et al.have presented the results and protocol of their Monitor Trial Study, comparing three approaches to self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) to the subsequent outcome of their HbA1c metabolic control, by investigating 3 groups of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients treated with non-insulin antidiabetics, i.e., "no SMBG," "once daily SMBG," and "once daily SMBG with enhanced patient feedback" groups. The authors concluded that neither clinically nor statistically significant differences were found after year 1 of the study, thus expressing a skeptical view toward the routine use of SMBG in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients. A comprehensive list of metanalysis, studies, and recommendations presenting inconsistent results and advice as to the use of SMBG in treating T2DM patients were mentioned in the article The Authors also considered the fact that there was only lower grade evidence (B, C, D) supporting SMBG treatment, including our paper recommending specified SMBG use. The Monitor Trial Study team has collected and analyzed a large amount of data, leading to interesting and profound debate. Nevertheless, we would like to make three comments that may contribute to further, more detailed discussion of the issue.
Czech name
—
Czech description
—
Classification
Type
O - Miscellaneous
CEP classification
—
OECD FORD branch
30202 - Endocrinology and metabolism (including diabetes, hormones)
Result continuities
Project
—
Continuities
S - Specificky vyzkum na vysokych skolach<br>I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace
Others
Publication year
2018
Confidentiality
S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů