CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 189Diabetes Treatment and ManagementDiabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes Management and Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Impact of Active Versus Usual Algorithmic Titration of Basal Insulin and Point-of-Care Versus Laboratory Measurement of HbA1c on Glycemic Control in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes

Open access
Kennedy, Laurence, Herman, William H., Strange, Poul, Harris, Anthony, for the GOAL A1C Team·2006·Diabetes Care
DOI 10.2337/diacare.29.01.06.dc05-1058
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

OBJECTIVE—The objective of this study was to assess the impact of active versus usual monitoring of algorithmic insulin titration and point-of-care (POC) versus laboratory HbA1c (A1C) measurement on glycemic control in primary care. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—The Glycemic Optimization with Algorithms and Labs at Point of Care (GOAL A1C) study was a 24-week, randomized, parallel-group, four-arm, open-label study of 7,893 adults with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled by oral antidiabetic agents and requiring insulin. Patients were randomly assigned by investigators from 2,164 sites in the U.S. to insulin glargine with either 1) usual (no unsolicited contact between visits) insulin titration using a simple algorithm with laboratory A1C testing, 2) usual titration with POC A1C testing, 3) active (weekly monitored) titration with laboratory A1C testing, or 4) active titration with POC A1C testing. Outcome measures included a change in A1C and fasting self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) levels, percentage of patients achieving A1C <7.0%, and hypoglycemia frequency. RESULTS—Significant A1C and SMBG reductions were observed in all arms (P < 0.0001). Compared with usual insulin titration, active titration achieved greater A1C reduction (1.5 vs. 1.3%; P < 0.0001), SMBG reduction (88 vs. 79 mg/dl; P < 0.0001), and proportion of patients achieving A1C <7.0% (38 vs. 30%; P < 0.0001). Among patients receiving active titration, POC A1C testing was associated with an increase in the proportion achieving an A1C <7.0% (41% for POC vs. 36% for laboratory; P < 0.0001). Hypoglycemia rates were low (usual vs. active groups: 3.7 vs. 6.0 all confirmed episodes/patient-year [P < 0.001]; 0.09 vs. 0.14 severe episodes/patient-year [NS]). CONCLUSIONS—In a predominantly primary care setting, addition of insulin glargine using a simple algorithm achieved significant improvements in glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes in all four study arms. Active titration resulted in significant incremental improvements in glycemic control, and, among patients receiving active titration, POC A1C testing resulted in a greater portion achieving A1C <7.0%.

Overview

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/diacare.29.01.06.dc05-1058

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Show all 17 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Kennedy L, Herman WH: Glycated hemoglobin assessment in clinical practice: comparison of the A1cNow™ point-of-care device with central laboratory testing (GOAL A1C study). Diabetes Technol Ther In press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–189 of 189

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Kennedy, L., Herman, W. H., Strange, P., Harris, A., & for the GOAL A1C Team
Affiliations
  • University of Florida Health (US)
  • Michigan Medicine (US)
  • Sanofi (United States) (US)
ORCID
Venue
Diabetes Care
Publisher
American Diabetes Association
Published
2006-01-01
Volume
29
Issue
1
Pages
1-8
ISSN
  • 0149-5992 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-5548
DOI
10.2337/diacare.29.01.06.dc05-1058
OpenAlex
W2123177035
Semantic Scholar
79a91e161e5558e1ed386179918231b52e1af634
Cited by
189
References
17
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 12
FWCI
18.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Diabetes Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • American Diabetes Association
  • Eli Lilly and Company
  • Pfizer
  • GlaxoSmithKline
  • Sanofi
  • Novo Nordisk
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 Management and Education
Keywords
type 2 diabetes, basal insulin, insulin dose adjustment, glycemic control, insulin glargine, self-monitoring of blood glucose, hypoglycemia, primary care, severe hypoglycemia
MeSH terms
Administration, Oral, Adult, Aged, Algorithms, Blood Glucose, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Hypoglycemic Agents, Male, Middle Aged, Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring, Body Mass Index, Point-of-Care Systems, Racial Groups

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