Search

Background: Sex differences in clinical outcomes have been observed for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). These could be related to sex disparities in treatment. Objectives: To determine whether there are sex disparities in medication prescribing amongst patients with T2DM. Methods: A cohort study was conducted using the Groningen Initiative to ANalyze Type 2 diabetes Treatment (GIANTT) database, which includes data from primary care patients with T2DM from the north of the Netherlands. Data on demographics, physical examinations, laboratory measurements and prescribing were extracted. A set of validated prescribing quality indicators assessing the prevalence, start, intensification and safety of glucose‐, lipid‐, blood pressure‐ and albuminuria‐lowering medication was applied for the calendar year 2019. Univariate logistic regression analyses were conducted. Results: We included 10,456 patients (47% females). Females were less often treated with metformin (81.7% vs. 86.5%; OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.61–0.80), and were less often prescribed a renin‐angiotensin‐aldosterone inhibitor (RAAS‐i) when treated with multiple blood pressure‐lowering medicines (81.9% vs. 89.3%; OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.46–0.64) or when having albuminuria (74.7% vs. 82.1%; OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.49–0.85) than males. Statin treatment was less frequently started (19.7% vs. 24.7%; OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.58–0.96) and prescribed (58.7% vs. 63.9%; OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.73–0.89) in females. There were no differences in starting and intensifying glucose‐, blood pressure‐ and albuminuria‐lowering medication. Conclusions: Sex disparities in medication prescribing amongst T2DM patients were seen, including less starting with statins and potential undertreatment with RAAS‐i in females. Such disparities may partly explain higher excess risks for cardiovascular and renal complications associated with diabetes observed in females. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present scoping review has the objective of providing an overview of meta‐research in dentistry. A search of the PubMed database was performed for the period 11 October 2014 to 10 October 2019. Study selection and data extraction were performed independently by one author; prior to this, a random sample of 10% of the retrieved titles and abstracts were independently screened by two authors, achieving agreement of >80% on eligibility for initial inclusion, corresponding to good agreement. The following information was extracted from the full text of each article: meta‐research area of interest; study design; type of studies evaluated in the meta‐research; type of methodology used in assessment of the primary research; conflicts of interest reported; sponsorships reported; dental discipline; journal of publication; country of the first author; number of citations; and impact factor. A total of 7800 documents were initially retrieved. After analysis of the title/abstract and the full text of each article, and a snowballing procedure, 155 meta‐research studies were identified and included. The 'methods' and 'reporting' meta‐research areas were the most prevalent, with 73 (47%) and 61 (40%) studies, respectively. General dentistry, and orthodontics and dentofacial orthopaedics were the dental specialties with the greatest number/proportion of included studies with 45 (29%) and 28 (18%) studies, respectively. These findings may help to prioritize future meta‐research in dentistry, consequently avoiding unnessecary investigations, and increasing the value of oral and dental research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Quality indicators are used to measure whether healthcare professionals act according to guidelines, but few indicators focus on the quality of pharmacotherapy for diabetes. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a set of prescribing quality indicators (PQIs) for type 2 diabetes in primary care, and to apply this set in practice. To take into account the stepwise treatment of chronic disease, clinical action indicators were specifically considered.Methods: Potential PQIs were derived from clinical practice guidelines and evaluated using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method, a modified Delphi panel. Thereafter, the feasibility of calculating the PQIs was tested in two large Dutch primary care databases including >80 000 diabetes patients in 2012.Results: 32 PQIs focusing on treatment with glucose, lipid, blood pressure and albuminuria lowering drugs, and on vaccination, medication safety and adherence were assessed by ten experts. After the Delphi panel, the final list of twenty PQIs was tested for feasibility. All PQIs definitions were feasible for measuring the quality of medication treatment using these databases. Indicator scores ranged from 18.8% to 90.8% for PQIs focusing on current medication use, clinical action and medication choice, and from 2.1% to 37.2% for PQIs focusing on medication safety.Discussion and Conclusions: Twenty PQIs focusing on treatment with glucose, lipid, blood pressure and albuminuria lowering drugs, and on medication safety in type 2 diabetes were developed, considered valid and operationally feasible. Results showed room for improvement, especially in initiation and intensification of treatment as measured with clinical action indicators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objectives: Quality indicators (QIs) can be used for measuring the quality of actions of healthcare providers. This systematic review gives an overview of such QIs measuring processes of care for chronic kidney disease (CKD), and identifies the QIs that have content, face, operational and/or predictive validity.Methods: PubMed and Embase were searched using a strategy combining the terms "quality of care," "quality indicators" and "chronic kidney disease". Papers were included if they focused on developing, testing or applying QIs for assessing the quality of care in adult patients with CKD not on renal replacement therapy.Results: Two hundred and seventy-three QIs from thirty-one papers were extracted, including QIs on adequate monitoring of kidney function and vascular risk factors, on indicated treatment, drug safety, adherence and referral to a specialist. The QIs that were considered content, face and operational valid focused on monitoring of glomerular filtration rate, albumin-creatinine ratio, lipid levels and blood pressure, the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, nitrofurantoin and biphosphonates in patients with CKD, and QIs on monitoring haemoglobin and treatment with angiotensin-converting-enzyme-inhibitors/angiotensin-receptor-II-blockers in patients with CKD and comorbidities. No QIs were tested for predictive validity. In addition, only two QIs focused on diet and no other QIs focused on lifestyle management.Conclusions: Based on this review, sufficiently validated QIs can be selected for measuring the quality of CKD care. This review provides insight in QIs that need further validation, and in areas of care where QIs are still lacking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]