4.7 Article

Persistent differences among centers over 3 years in glycemic control and hypoglycemia in a study of 3,805 children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes from the Hvidore Study Group

期刊

DIABETES CARE
卷 24, 期 8, 页码 1342-1347

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/diacare.24.8.1342

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE - Twenty-one international pediatric diabetes centers from 17 countries investigated the effect of simple feedback about the grand mean HbA(1c) level of all centers and the average value of each center on changes in metabolic control, rate of severe hypoglycemia, and insulin therapy over a 3-year period. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS - Clinical data collection and determination of HbA(1c) levels were conducted at a central location in 1995 (n = 2,780, age 0-18 years) and 1998 (n = 2, 101, age 11-18 years). RESULTS- Striking differences in average HbA(1c) concentrations were found among centers; these differences remained after adjustment for the significant confounders of sex, age, and diabetes duration. They were apparent even in patients with short diabetes duration and remained stable 3 years later (mean adjusted HbA(1c) level: 8.62 +/- 0.03 vs. 8.67 +/- 0.04 [1995 vs. 1998, respectively]). Three centers had improved significantly, four centers had deteriorated significantly in their overall adjusted HbA(1c) levels, and 14 centers had not changed in glycemiccontrol. During the observation period, there were increases in the adjusted insulin close by 0.076 U/kg, the adjusted number of injections by 0.23 injections per day, and the adjusted BMI by 0.95 kg/m(2). The 1995 versus 1998 difference in glycerine control for the seven centers could not be explained by prevailing insulin regimens or rates of hypoglycemia. CONCLUSIONS - This study reveals significant outcome differences among large international pediatric diabetes centers. Feedback and comparison of HbA(1c) levels led to an intensification Of insulin therapy in most centers, but improved glycerine control in only a few.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据