Diabetes Care
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Diabetes Care 29:S1-S2, 2006
© 2006 by the American Diabetes Association
This Article
Right arrow Extract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Diabetes Care 29:S1-S2, 2006
© 2006 by the American Diabetes Association, Inc.

INTRODUCTION
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Introduction


   INTRODUCTION
TOP
 INTRODUCTION
Position statement:
 ADA Statement:
 Technical review:
 Consensus statement:
 Grading of scientific evidence:
 
The American Diabetes Association (ADA) has been actively involved in the development and dissemination of diabetes care standards, guidelines, and related documents for many years. These statements are published in one or more of the Association’s professional journals. This supplement contains ADA’s "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes," our major position statement, which contains all or key recommendations. In addition, contained herein are selected position statements on certain topics not adequately covered in the "Standards." We hope that this is a convenient and important resource for all health care professionals who care for people with diabetes.

ADA Clinical Practice Recommendations consist of position statements that represent official ADA opinion as denoted by formal review and approval by the Professional Practice Committee and the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors. ADA Statements, consensus statements, and technical reviews are not official ADA recommendations; however, they are produced under the auspices of the Association by invited experts. These publications are reviewed by the Professional Practice Committee for general content and used as source documents for the updating of the "Standards."

ADA has adopted the following definitions for its clinically related reports.


   Position statement:
TOP
 INTRODUCTION
 Position statement:
ADA Statement:
 Technical review:
 Consensus statement:
 Grading of scientific evidence:
 
An official point of view or belief of the ADA. Position statements are issued on scientific or medical issues related to diabetes. They are published in ADA journals and other scientific/medical publications as appropriate. Position statements must be reviewed and approved by the Professional Practice Committee and, subsequently, by the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors. ADA position statements are typically based on a technical review or other published review and are peer reviewed on an annual basis. A list of position statements is included on p. S69 of this supplement.


   ADA Statement:
TOP
 INTRODUCTION
 Position statement:
 ADA Statement:
Technical review:
 Consensus statement:
 Grading of scientific evidence:
 
A focused review on a clinical topic with recommendations. It is authored, and the recommendations are those of the authors based on the evidence presented. ADA Statements are reviewed externally and also by the Professional Practice Committee for overall content. As noted above, the recommendations made are considered by the Professional Practice Committee as part of the review and updating of the "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes." A list of ADA Statements is included on p. S69 of this supplement.


   Technical review:
TOP
 INTRODUCTION
 Position statement:
 ADA Statement:
 Technical review:
Consensus statement:
 Grading of scientific evidence:
 
A balanced review and analysis of the literature on a scientific or medical topic related to diabetes. The technical review provides a scientific rationale for a position statement and undergoes peer review before submission to the Professional Practice Committee for approval. In some cases, in place of a technical review, original research publications, conference proceedings, or other comprehensive review articles are used as a basis for a position statement. A list of technical reviews is included on page S64 of this supplement.


   Consensus statement:
TOP
 INTRODUCTION
 Position statement:
 ADA Statement:
 Technical review:
 Consensus statement:
Grading of scientific evidence:
 
A comprehensive examination by a panel of experts (i.e., consensus panel) of a scientific or medical issue related to diabetes. A consensus statement is developed immediately following a consensus conference at which presentations are made on the issue under review. The statement represents the panel’s collective analysis, evaluation, and opinion based in part on the conference proceedings. The need for a consensus conference arises when clinicians or scientists desire guidance on a subject for which there is a relative deficiency of "evidence" that might otherwise allow a more definite statement to be made. Once written by the panel, a consensus statement is not subject to subsequent review or approval and does not represent official Association opinion. A list of recent consensus statements is included on p. S64 of this supplement.

The Association’s Professional Practice Committee is responsible for reviewing official position statements. Appointment to the Professional Practice Committee is based on excellence in clinical practice and research. The committee comprises physicians, diabetes educators, and registered dietitians who have expertise in a range of areas, including adult and pediatric endocrinology, epidemiology and public health, lipid research, hypertension, and preconception and pregnancy care. The committee regularly reviews each previously approved statement and makes necessary revisions. Both new and revised position statements are also reviewed by outside experts, after which they are approved by the Executive Committee.


   Grading of scientific evidence:
TOP
 INTRODUCTION
 Position statement:
 ADA Statement:
 Technical review:
 Consensus statement:
 Grading of scientific evidence:
 
Since the ADA first began publishing practice guidelines, considerable evolution has occurred in the evaluation of scientific evidence and in the development of evidence-based guidelines. Accordingly, we have developed a classification system to grade the quality of scientific evidence supporting ADA recommendations. The system outlined in Table 1 will be used for all new and revised ADA position statements.

Recommendations have been assigned ratings of A, B, or C, depending on the quality of evidence (Table 1). Expert opinion (E) is a separate category for recommendations in which there is as yet no evidence from clinical trials, in which clinical trials may be impractical, or in which there is conflicting evidence. Recommendations with an "A" rating are based on large well-designed clinical trials or well-done meta-analyses. Generally, these recommendations have the best chance of improving outcomes when applied to the population to which they are appropriate. Recommendations with lower levels of evidence may be equally important but are not as well supported. This supplement contains seven statements that have used this system. The level of evidence supporting a given recommendation is noted either as a heading for a group of recommendations or after a given recommendation in parentheses.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1— ADA evidence grading system for clinical practice recommendations

 
Of course, evidence is only one component of clinical decision-making. Clinicians care for patients, not populations; guidelines must always be interpreted with the needs of the individual patient in mind. Individual circumstances, such as comorbid and coexisting diseases, age, education, disability, and, above all, patients’ values and preferences, must also be considered and may lead to different treatment targets and strategies. Also, conventional evidence hierarchies, such as the one adapted by the ADA, may miss some nuances that are important in diabetes care. For example, while there is excellent evidence from clinical trials supporting the importance of achieving glycemic control, the optimal way to achieve this result is less clear. It is difficult to assess each component of such a complex intervention.

The ADA will continue to improve and update the Clinical Practice Recommendations to ensure that clinicians, health plans, and policy makers can continue to rely on them as the most authoritative and current guidelines for diabetes care.

We hope you find this compilation useful. Our Clinical Practice Recommendations are also available on the Association’s website at www.diabetes.org/diabetescare.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Diabetes CareHome page
A. S. Adams, C. M. Trinacty, F. Zhang, K. Kleinman, R. W. Grant, J. B. Meigs, S. B. Soumerai, and D. Ross-Degnan
Medication Adherence and Racial Differences in A1C Control
Diabetes Care, May 1, 2008; 31(5): 916 - 921.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 The Diabetes EducatorHome page
R. C. Povey and D. Clark-Carter
Diabetes and Healthy Eating: A Systematic Review of the Literature
The Diabetes Educator, November 1, 2007; 33(6): 931 - 959.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Clin. Pathol.Home page
W S A Smellie, N Shaw, R Bowley, M F Stewart, A M Kelly, P J Twomey, P R Chadwick, J B Houghton, J P Ng, and A J McCulloch
Best practice in primary care pathology: review 10
J. Clin. Pathol., November 1, 2007; 60(11): 1195 - 1204.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Diabetes Spectr.Home page
D. Charron-Prochownik
Evidence-Based Clinical Decision Making: A Framework to Guide Clinical Practice (Exemplar: Preconception Counseling)
Diabetes Spectr, April 1, 2007; 20(2): 69 - 70.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JAMAHome page
Improvement in Lipid and Glycated Hemoglobin Control Among Black Adults With Diabetes--Raleigh and Greensboro, North Carolina, 1997-2004
JAMA, January 17, 2007; 297(3): 257 - 258.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Diabetes Spectr.Home page
M. A. Greene
Diabetes Legal Advocacy Comes of Age
Diabetes Spectr, July 1, 2006; 19(3): 171 - 179.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Extract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Diabetes Diabetes Care Clinical Diabetes Diabetes Spectrum