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]