Cited by 59Diabetes Treatment and ManagementDiabetes Management and EducationDiabetes Management and Research

Top ten research priorities for type 2 diabetes: results from the Diabetes UK–James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership

Open access
Finer, Sarah, Robb, Paul, Cowan, Katherine, Daly, Ann, Robertson, Elizabeth, Farmer, Andrew·2017·The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s2213-8587(17)30324-8

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The sample had characteristics very similar to the general population of people with type 2 diabetes, so the results are likely to be generalisable.

    “The sample had characteristics very similar to the general population of people with type 2 diabetes, so the results are likely to be generalisable.17”

    From Primary care-led weight management for remission of type 2 diabetes (DiRECT): an open-label, cluster-randomised trial (2018) · cites this paper as [17]

    The paper’s section on the Priority Setting Partnership (page unavailable) reports broad reach among key target groups and expresses confidence that the process captured key research priorities. It does not compare respondents’ characteristics with those of the general population of people with type 2 diabetes, so the stated basis for generalisability is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The groups were well matched for baseline characteristics.

    “Although the groups were well matched for baseline characteristics, 42”

    From 5-year follow-up of the randomised Diabetes Remission Clinical Trial (DiRECT) of continued support for weight loss maintenance in the UK: an extension study (2024) · cites this paper as [42]

    The priority-setting process section describes survey respondents and how their questions were ranked, not study groups compared at baseline. Searches for “well matched for baseline characteristics” and “baseline characteristics between groups matched controls” found no passage addressing whether groups were well matched. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • 28% of all eligible individuals volunteered to participate, and 79% completed the intensive total diet replacement phase.

    “28% of all eligible individuals volunteered to participate, 17 and 79% completed the intensive total diet replacement phase”

    From Primary care-led weight management for remission of type 2 diabetes (DiRECT): an open-label, cluster-randomised trial (2018) · cites this paper as [17]

    The citation follows the 28% participation figure. The paper’s section on the priority-setting process reports responses to a research-priorities questionnaire, not the proportion of eligible individuals who volunteered for a diet-replacement intervention. Searches for the 28% figure and the total diet replacement phase found no supporting passage in our copy; no page number is available. (LLM, conf=0.77)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Baseline characteristics were similar between groups.

    “Baseline characteristics were similar between groups (Table 1).17”

    From Primary care-led weight management for remission of type 2 diabetes (DiRECT): an open-label, cluster-randomised trial (2018) · cites this paper as [17]

    The section on the type 2 diabetes priority-setting process (page unavailable) describes survey respondents and how research questions were ranked, but does not compare baseline characteristics between groups. Searches for the quoted claim and for baseline characteristics or a Table 1 comparison found no supporting passage in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Finer, S., Robb, P., Cowan, K., Daly, A., Robertson, E., & Farmer, A.
Affiliations
  • Queen Mary University of London (GB)
  • University of Southampton (GB)
  • Diabetes UK (GB)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
Venue
The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-12
Volume
5
Issue
12
Pages
935-936
ISSN
2213-8587 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2766919801
Cited by
59
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 1
FWCI
4.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Queen Mary Research Online (Queen Mary University of London) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (NF-SI-0512-10077)
  • Diabetes UK
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
Keywords
type 2 diabetes, research priorities, patient and public involvement, James Lind Alliance, priority setting partnership, Diabetes UK, research funding
MeSH terms
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, United Kingdom, Health Personnel, Health Priorities, Humans, Patient Participation, Research, Public-Private Sector Partnerships

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review