Cited by 397Diabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes Management and EducationDiabetes and associated disorders

Standardizing clinically meaningful outcome measures beyond HbA1c for type 1 diabetes: a consensus report of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the American Association of Diabetes Educators, the American Diabetes Association, the Endocrine Society, JDRF International, The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust, the Pediatric Endocrine Society, and the T1D Exchange

Open access
Agiostratidou, Gina, Anhalt, Henry, Ball, Dana, Blonde, Lawrence, Gourgari, Evgenia, Harriman, Karen N., Kowalski, Aaron J., Madden, Paul +7 more·2017·Diabetes Care

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: ) based upon a review of the evidence, consensus from clinical experts, and input from researchers, people with type 1 diabetes, and industry. Priority outcomes include hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, time in range, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). While priority outcomes for type 1 and type 2 diabetes may overlap, type 1 diabetes was the focus of this work. RESEARCH AND METHODS: A Steering Committee-comprising representatives from the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the American Association of Diabetes Educators, the American Diabetes Association, the Endocrine Society, JDRF International, The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust, the Pediatric Endocrine Society, and the T1D Exchange-was the decision-making body for the Type 1 Diabetes Outcomes Program. Their work was informed by input from researchers, industry, and people with diabetes through Advisory Committees representing each stakeholder group. Stakeholder surveys were used to identify priority outcomes. The outcomes prioritized in the surveys were hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, time in range, DKA, and PROs. To develop consensus on the definitions of these outcomes, the Steering Committee relied on published evidence, their clinical expertise, and feedback from the Advisory Committees. RESULTS: The Steering Committee developed definitions for hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, time in range, and DKA in type 1 diabetes. The definitions reflect their assessment of the outcome's short- and long-term clinical impact on people with type 1 diabetes. Knowledge gaps to be addressed by future research were identified. The Steering Committee discussed PROs and concluded that further type 1 diabetes-specific development is needed. CONCLUSIONS: in the research, development, and evaluation of type 1 diabetes therapies.

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 · 10.2337/dc17-1624

Cites

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?

  • In many countries, the benefits and utility of CGM are now recognized by national and international medical organizations for individuals with insulin-requiring diabetes and/or those at risk for hypoglycemia.

    “In many countries, the benefits and utility of CGM are now recognized by national and international medical organizations for individuals with insulin-requiring diabetes and/or those at risk for hypoglycemia (16-21).”

    From Clinical Targets for Continuous Glucose Monitoring Data Interpretation: Recommendations From the International Consensus on Time in Range (2019) · cites this paper as [20]

    In Hypoglycemia > Gaps in Evidence and Measurement (page unavailable), the consensus report recognizes CGM’s utility for detecting hypoglycemia missed by self-monitoring, particularly at night. But the report focuses on type 1 diabetes; it does not establish recognition by medical organizations in many countries or address the broader group of people with insulin-requiring diabetes. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Some individuals with type 1 diabetes or type 2 diabetes and hypoglycemia who have a fear of hyperglycemia are resistant to relaxation of glycemic targets.

    “Conversely, some individuals with type 1 diabetes or type 2 diabetes and hypoglycemia who have a fear of hyperglycemia are resistant to relaxation of glycemic targets (74)(75)(76)(77)(78)(79)(80)(81)(82)(83).”

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 77 · Cited by 397

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [4]Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. HbA1c testing frequency: a review of the clinical evidence and guidelines [Internet], 2014. Available from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0069851/pdf/PubMedHealth_PMH0069851.pdf. Accessed 26 May 2017 25411681
  2. [16]Cryer PE. The prevention and correction of hypoglycemia. In Handbook of Physiology: A Critical, Comprehensive Presentation of Physiological Knowledge and Concepts. Sec. 7, Vol 2. Jefferson L, Cherrington A, Eds. New York, Oxford University Press, 2001, p. 1057–1092

Authors
Agiostratidou, G., Anhalt, H., Ball, D., Blonde, L., Gourgari, E., Harriman, K. N., Kowalski, A. J., Madden, P., McAuliffe-Fogarty, A. H., McElwee-Malloy, M., Peters, A., Raman, S., Reifschneider, K., Rubin, K., & Weinzimer, S. A.
Affiliations
  • Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust (US)
  • T1D Exchange (US)
  • American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (US)
  • Endocrine Society (US)
  • American Association of Diabetes Educators (US)
  • Breakthrough T1D (US)
  • American Diabetes Association (US)
  • American Diabetes Association, Arlington, VA
  • Pediatric Endocrine Society (US)
Corresponding author
Kowalski, Aaron J.
Venue
Diabetes Care
Published
2017-11-10
Volume
40
Issue
12
Pages
1622-1630
ISSN
  • 0149-5992 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-5548
OpenAlex
W2769674107
Cited by
397
References
77
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 48 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 55 · 2021: 49 · 2020: 55 · 2019: 56 · 2018: 41 · 2017: 3
FWCI
33.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Diabetes Care (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (KL2TR001432, UL1TR001863)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Diabetes and associated disorders
Keywords
type 1 diabetes, outcome measures, outcome standardization, hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, time in range, diabetic ketoacidosis, patient-reported outcomes, outcome definitions, HbA1c, consensus definition
MeSH terms
Endocrinologists, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Endocrinology, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Hyperglycemia, Hypoglycemia, Societies, Medical, United States, Diabetic Ketoacidosis, Outcome Assessment, Health Care

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