Prioritisation of clinical research by the example of type 2 diabetes: a caregiver-survey on perceived relevance and need for evidence.

<h4>Background</h4>The Cochrane Collaboration aims at providing the best available evidence for interventions in health care. We wished to examine to which extent treatments considered relevant by caregivers in type 2 diabetes are covered by Cochrane systematic reviews.<h4>Methodol...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:
Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Stefan Kamprath, Antje Timmer
Formato: article
Lenguaje:EN
Publicado: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2012
Materias:
R
Q
Acceso en línea:https://doaj.org/article/729b7afad4fc4b79bfcd17b394c25ecd
Etiquetas: Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
id oai:doaj.org-article:729b7afad4fc4b79bfcd17b394c25ecd
record_format dspace
spelling oai:doaj.org-article:729b7afad4fc4b79bfcd17b394c25ecd2021-11-18T07:24:44ZPrioritisation of clinical research by the example of type 2 diabetes: a caregiver-survey on perceived relevance and need for evidence.1932-620310.1371/journal.pone.0032414https://doaj.org/article/729b7afad4fc4b79bfcd17b394c25ecd2012-01-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/22448219/?tool=EBIhttps://doaj.org/toc/1932-6203<h4>Background</h4>The Cochrane Collaboration aims at providing the best available evidence for interventions in health care. We wished to examine to which extent treatments considered relevant by caregivers in type 2 diabetes are covered by Cochrane systematic reviews.<h4>Methodology/principal findings</h4>130 different interventions in type 2 diabetes were identified based on a review of clinical practice guidelines and expert opinion (Table S1). 459 members of the German Diabetes Society (diabetologists, general practitioners, diabetic nurses, nutritionists, podologists, others) were surveyed via e-mail-list to rank a) the perceived clinical relevance and b) the perceived need for evidence of interventions, based on an internet survey. In the Cochrane Library, there were, at the time of this evaluation, 56 reviews on interventions in diabetes. Generally, coverage of topics by Cochrane reviews reflected the perceived clinical relevance and perceived need for evidence. As an example, highly ranked treatments such as lifestyle changes or oral antidiabetics were well covered, while low rank treatments such as complementary approaches were not covered. Discrepancies occurred with new treatments such as amylin-analogues (low relevance, high need for evidence, review not yet completed) and interventions with immediate and dramatic effects such as treating hypoglycemia (high relevance, low need for evidence, no review). Also, there was a relative scarcity of reviews concerning specific problems, in particular, treatment of late diabetic complications.<h4>Conclusions/significance</h4>For most interventions, perceived relevance and perceived need for evidence are reflected by the evidence already available. Prioritizing should aim at improving immediacy and consideration of the treatment of complications.Stefan KamprathAntje TimmerPublic Library of Science (PLoS)articleMedicineRScienceQENPLoS ONE, Vol 7, Iss 3, p e32414 (2012)
institution DOAJ
collection DOAJ
language EN
topic Medicine
R
Science
Q
spellingShingle Medicine
R
Science
Q
Stefan Kamprath
Antje Timmer
Prioritisation of clinical research by the example of type 2 diabetes: a caregiver-survey on perceived relevance and need for evidence.
description <h4>Background</h4>The Cochrane Collaboration aims at providing the best available evidence for interventions in health care. We wished to examine to which extent treatments considered relevant by caregivers in type 2 diabetes are covered by Cochrane systematic reviews.<h4>Methodology/principal findings</h4>130 different interventions in type 2 diabetes were identified based on a review of clinical practice guidelines and expert opinion (Table S1). 459 members of the German Diabetes Society (diabetologists, general practitioners, diabetic nurses, nutritionists, podologists, others) were surveyed via e-mail-list to rank a) the perceived clinical relevance and b) the perceived need for evidence of interventions, based on an internet survey. In the Cochrane Library, there were, at the time of this evaluation, 56 reviews on interventions in diabetes. Generally, coverage of topics by Cochrane reviews reflected the perceived clinical relevance and perceived need for evidence. As an example, highly ranked treatments such as lifestyle changes or oral antidiabetics were well covered, while low rank treatments such as complementary approaches were not covered. Discrepancies occurred with new treatments such as amylin-analogues (low relevance, high need for evidence, review not yet completed) and interventions with immediate and dramatic effects such as treating hypoglycemia (high relevance, low need for evidence, no review). Also, there was a relative scarcity of reviews concerning specific problems, in particular, treatment of late diabetic complications.<h4>Conclusions/significance</h4>For most interventions, perceived relevance and perceived need for evidence are reflected by the evidence already available. Prioritizing should aim at improving immediacy and consideration of the treatment of complications.
format article
author Stefan Kamprath
Antje Timmer
author_facet Stefan Kamprath
Antje Timmer
author_sort Stefan Kamprath
title Prioritisation of clinical research by the example of type 2 diabetes: a caregiver-survey on perceived relevance and need for evidence.
title_short Prioritisation of clinical research by the example of type 2 diabetes: a caregiver-survey on perceived relevance and need for evidence.
title_full Prioritisation of clinical research by the example of type 2 diabetes: a caregiver-survey on perceived relevance and need for evidence.
title_fullStr Prioritisation of clinical research by the example of type 2 diabetes: a caregiver-survey on perceived relevance and need for evidence.
title_full_unstemmed Prioritisation of clinical research by the example of type 2 diabetes: a caregiver-survey on perceived relevance and need for evidence.
title_sort prioritisation of clinical research by the example of type 2 diabetes: a caregiver-survey on perceived relevance and need for evidence.
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
publishDate 2012
url https://doaj.org/article/729b7afad4fc4b79bfcd17b394c25ecd
work_keys_str_mv AT stefankamprath prioritisationofclinicalresearchbytheexampleoftype2diabetesacaregiversurveyonperceivedrelevanceandneedforevidence
AT antjetimmer prioritisationofclinicalresearchbytheexampleoftype2diabetesacaregiversurveyonperceivedrelevanceandneedforevidence
_version_ 1718423481469632512