Voigtskriver1498

Defining type of diabetes using survey data is challenging, although important, for determining national estimates of diabetes. The purpose of this study was to compare the percentage and characteristics of US adults classified as having type 1 diabetes as defined by several algorithms.

This study included 6331 respondents aged ≥18 years who reported a physician diagnosis of diabetes in the 2016-2017 National Health Interview Survey. Seven algorithms classified type 1 diabetes using various combinations of self-reported diabetes type, age of diagnosis, current and continuous insulin use, and use of oral hypoglycemics.

The percentage of type 1 diabetes among those with diabetes ranged from 3.4% for those defined by age of diagnosis <30 years and continuous insulin use (algorithm 2) to 10.2% for those defined only by continuous insulin use (algorithm 1) and 10.4% for those defined as self-report of type 1 (supplementary algorithm 6). Among those defined by age of diagnosis <30 years and continuous insulin use (algorithm 2), by self-reported type 1 diabetes and continuous insulin use (algorithm 4), and by self-reported type 1 diabetes and current insulin use (algorithm 5), mean body mass index (BMI) (28.6, 27.4, and 28.5 kg/m

, respectively) and percentage using oral hypoglycemics (16.1%, 11.1%, and 19.0%, respectively) were lower than for all other algorithms assessed. Among those defined by continuous insulin use alone (algorithm 1), the estimates for mean age and age of diagnosis (54.3 and 30.9 years, respectively) and BMI (30.9 kg/m

) were higher than for other algorithms.

Estimates of type 1 diabetes using commonly used algorithms in survey data result in varying degrees of prevalence, characteristic distributions, and potential misclassification.

Estimates of type 1 diabetes using commonly used algorithms in survey data result in varying degrees of prevalence, characteristic distributions, and potential misclassification.

To investigate the association between conflicts of interest and favourable recommendations in clinical guidelines, advisory committee reports, opinion pieces, and narrative reviews.

Systematic review.

Studies that compared the association between conflicts of interest and favourable recommendations of drugs or devices (eg, recommending a drug) in clinical guidelines, advisory committee reports, opinion pieces (eg, editorials), or narrative reviews.

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Methodology Register (from inception to February 2020), reference lists, Web of Science, and grey literature.

Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of the studies. click here Pooled relative risks and 95% confidence intervals were estimated using random effects models (relative risk >1 indicates that documents with conflicts of interest more often had favourable recommendations than documents with no conflicts of interest). Financial and non-financial conflicts of interest were analysed separates of all four types of documents combined supported these findings (1.26, 1.09 to 1.44). In one study that investigated specialty interests, the association between including radiologists as authors of guidelines and recommending routine breast cancer was relative risk 2.10, 95% confidence interval 0.92 to 4.77; 12 clinical guidelines).

We interpret our findings to indicate that financial conflicts of interest are associated with favourable recommendations of drugs and devices in clinical guidelines, advisory committee reports, opinion pieces, and narrative reviews. Limitations of this review were risk of confounding in the included studies and the statistical imprecision of individual analyses of each document type. It is not certain whether non-financial conflicts of interest influence recommendations.

Cochrane Methodology Review Protocol MR000040.

Cochrane Methodology Review Protocol MR000040.The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https//doi.org/10.2337/dc21-SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https//doi.org/10.2337/dc21-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https//doi.org/10.2337/dc21-SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https//doi.org/10.2337/dc21-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https//doi.org/10.2337/dc21-SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https//doi.org/10.2337/dc21-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.