Cited by 176Diabetes Treatment and ManagementDiabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins

Glycemic Control for Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Our Evolving Faith in the Face of Evidence

Open access
Rodríguez-Gutiérrez, René, Montori, Victor M.·2016·Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes

Abstract

Background—: We sought to determine the concordance between the accumulating evidence about the impact of tight versus less tight glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus since the publication of UKPDS (UK Prospective Diabetes Study) in 1998 until 2015 with the views about that evidence published in journal articles and practice guidelines. Methods and Results—: We searched in top general medicine and specialty journals for articles referring to glycemic control appearing between 2006 and 2015 and identified the latest practice guidelines. To summarize the evidence, we included all published systematic reviews and meta-analyses of contemporary randomized trials of glycemic control measuring patient-important microvascular and macrovascular outcomes, and completed a meta-analysis of their follow-up extensions. We identified 16 guidelines and 328 statements. The body of evidence produced estimates warranting moderate confidence. This evidence reported no significant impact of tight glycemic control on the risk of dialysis/transplantation/renal death, blindness, or neuropathy. In the past decade, however, most published statements (77%–100%) and guidelines (95%) unequivocally endorsed benefit. There is also no significant effect on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, or stroke; however, there is a consistent 15% relative-risk reduction of nonfatal myocardial infarction. Between 2006 and 2008, most statements (47%–83%) endorsed the benefit; after 2008 (ACCORD), only a minority (21%–36%) did. Conclusions—: Discordance exists between the research evidence and academic and clinical policy statements about the value of tight glycemic control to reduce micro- and macrovascular complications. This discordance may distort priorities in the research and practice agendas designed to improve the lives of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

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 · 10.1161/circoutcomes.116.002901

Cites

75 of 75 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?

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

2 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [31]Thomson Reuters Journal citation reports 2014 2015 http://thomsonreuters.com/en/products-services/scholarly-scientific-research/research-management-and-evaluation/journal-citation-reports.html

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rodríguez-Gutiérrez, R., & Montori, V. M.
Affiliations
From the Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, Metabolism, and Nutrition, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN (R.R.-G., V.M.M.); Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, Metabolism, and Nutrition, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN (R.R.-G., V.M.M.); and Endocrinology Division, Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital “Dr. Jose E. Gonzalez”, Autonomous University of Nuevo Leon, Monterrey, Mexico (R.R.-G.).
Venue
Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes
Published
2016-09
Volume
9
Issue
5
Pages
504-512
ISSN
  • 1941-7705 (ISSN-L)
  • 1941-7713
OpenAlex
W2508307252
Cited by
176
References
75
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 3
FWCI
18.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Circulation Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Mayo Clinic
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR000135)
  • Center for Clinical and Translational Sciences, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Keywords
type 2 diabetes, glycemic control, tight glycemic control, knowledge-practice gap, UKPDS, ACCORD trial, microvascular complications, macrovascular complications, myocardial infarction, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, stroke, kidney disease, retinopathy, neuropathy
MeSH terms
Blood Glucose, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Health Status, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Hypoglycemic Agents, Quality of Life, Risk Factors, Time Factors, Biomarkers, Treatment Outcome, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Risk Assessment, Evidence-Based Medicine, Diabetes Complications

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