Modelling the Time Taken to Experience a Type 2 Diabetes Related Complication Using a Survival Tree in Order to Advise General Practitioners

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher J. Steele ◽  
Adele H. Marshall ◽  
Anne Kouvonen ◽  
Frank Kee ◽  
Reijo Sund
Keyword(s):  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
Related Complication ◽  
Diabetes Related Complication ◽  
Survival Tree

Health-related quality of life of type 2 diabetes patients hospitalized for a diabetes-related complication

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (10) ◽  
pp. 2695-2704
Author(s):  
Shuyan Gu ◽  
Xiaoyong Wang ◽  
Lizheng Shi ◽  
Qiuying Sun ◽  
Xiaoqian Hu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Health Related Quality ◽  
Related Complication ◽  
Related Quality ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Diabetes Related Complication ◽  
Diabetes Patients

The management of Type 2 diabetes: A survey of Australian general practitioners

2012 ◽  
Vol 95 (3) ◽  
pp. 326-332 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Jiwa ◽  
X. Meng ◽  
D. Sriram ◽  
J. Hughes ◽  
S. Colagiuri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
General Practitioners

scholarly journals Patients' perceptions of nutrition care provided by general practitioners: focus on Type 2 diabetes

2012 ◽  
Vol 29 (6) ◽  
pp. 719-725 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Ball ◽  
R. Hughes ◽  
B. Desbrow ◽  
M. Leveritt
Keyword(s):  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
Nutrition Care

scholarly journals General Practitioners’ Barriers to Prescribe Physical Activity: The Dark Side of the Cluster Effects on the Physical Activity of Their Type 2 Diabetes Patients

PLoS ONE ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. e0140429 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlotte Lanhers ◽  
Martine Duclos ◽  
Aline Guttmann ◽  
Emmanuel Coudeyre ◽  
Bruno Pereira ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
Dark Side ◽  
Diabetes Patients

scholarly journals Use Of The GLYCEMIZER® Tool By General Practitioners To Meet Individual Glycated Hemoglobin Goals In Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicolas Byron Hatziisaak ◽  
Telemachos Hatziisaak ◽  
Urs Keller
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
Glycated Hemoglobin ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Hba1c Levels

Background — For general practitioners (GPs), it is often not easy to determine the individual glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c)-goal of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in order to offer them a tailored treatment and minimize side effects. Usually, they simply rely on their gut feeling. Objective — We assessed the usefulness of an easy-to-use algorithm (GLYCEMIZER®) to calculate individual HbA1c-goals and compared them with targeted (‘gut feeling’ of the GP’s) and achieved levels. Material and Methods — In this cross-sectional survey, general practitioners were asked to report anonymized data of at least 30 consecutive patients with T2DM presenting in their offices from May 1st to August 15th 2016 after obtaining informed consent. Demographic, clinical and biochemical data were used for the GLYCEMIZER® tool to calculate the individual HbA1c-goals. A statistical analysis was conducted in order to compare the calculated HbA1c-goals with targeted and achieved HbA1c-levels. Results — A total of 184 patients (mean age: 69y) were enrolled by 6 participating general practitioners from the Werdenberg-Sarganserland region in eastern Switzerland. Four patients did not meet the inclusion criteria. The overall median calculated HbA1c-goal did not differ from the targeted and achieved levels (7.1% vs. 7.0% vs. 7.1%, p=0.894). There was a significant difference between achieved and calculated HbA1c-levels in patients aged <50 (n=13, median 7.2% vs. 6.5%, p=0.014), goals not achieved) and patients aged >71 (n=85, median 6.9% vs. 7.5%, p=0.005), lower levels achieved in relation to calculated HbA1c-goals). Both in patients treated with insulin (n=44) and in patients without insulin (n=136) the achieved HbA1c-levels met the calculated goals (no insulin: 6.9% vs. 7.0%, ns; with insulin: 7.8% vs. 7.7%, ns). In regard to CKD-stages 3 and 4 the achieved HbA1c-levels were significantly lower than calculated (n= 41, median 6.9% vs. 7.6%, p=0.001). Conclusion — Calculating HbA1c-goals using the GLYCEMIZER tool is more accurate than relying on gut feeling alone, and is specifically useful in the treatment of patients with T2DM of less than 50, as well as more than 70 years of age. Furthermore, it is helpful to meet individual HbA1c-goals in patients with CKD-stages 3+.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document