Skip to main content
  • More from ADA
    • Diabetes
    • Diabetes Care
    • Clinical Diabetes
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care, abridged
    • ADA Scientific Sessions Abstracts
    • BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care
  • Subscribe
  • Log in
  • My Cart
  • Follow ada on Twitter
  • RSS
  • Visit ada on Facebook
Diabetes Spectrum

Advanced Search

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current
    • Current Issue
    • Online Ahead of Print
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care, Abridged
  • Browse
    • Issue Archive
    • Saved Searches
    • COVID-19 Article Collection
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care, Abridged
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • About the Editors
    • ADA Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Guidance for Reviewers
  • Reprints/Reuse
  • Advertising
  • Subscriptions
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions and Site Licenses
    • Access Institutional Usage Reports
    • Purchase Single Issues
  • Alerts
    • E­mail Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Podcasts
    • Diabetes Core Update
    • Special Podcast Series: Therapeutic Inertia
    • Special Podcast Series: Influenza Podcasts
    • Special Podcast Series: SGLT2 Inhibitors
    • Special Podcast Series: COVID-19
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
  • More from ADA
    • Diabetes
    • Diabetes Care
    • Clinical Diabetes
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care, abridged
    • ADA Scientific Sessions Abstracts
    • BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Diabetes Spectrum
  • Home
  • Current
    • Current Issue
    • Online Ahead of Print
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care, Abridged
  • Browse
    • Issue Archive
    • Saved Searches
    • COVID-19 Article Collection
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care, Abridged
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • About the Editors
    • ADA Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Guidance for Reviewers
  • Reprints/Reuse
  • Advertising
  • Subscriptions
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions and Site Licenses
    • Access Institutional Usage Reports
    • Purchase Single Issues
  • Alerts
    • E­mail Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Podcasts
    • Diabetes Core Update
    • Special Podcast Series: Therapeutic Inertia
    • Special Podcast Series: Influenza Podcasts
    • Special Podcast Series: SGLT2 Inhibitors
    • Special Podcast Series: COVID-19
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
Feature Article

Strategies for Improving the Acquisition and Integration of Evidence Into Diabetes Care

  1. Barbara A. Stetson, PhD,
  2. Laurie Ruggiero, PhD and
  3. Leonard L. Jack Jr., PhD, MSc
  1. Address correspondence to Barbara Stetson, PhD, Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, 317 Life Sciences Building, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY 40292.
Diabetes Spectrum 2010 Oct; 23(4): 246-253. https://doi.org/10.2337/diaspect.23.4.246
PreviousNext
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Purpose. Research findings can help support diabetes care providers' efforts to provide optimal education and clinical care in their practices. Much has been written about the importance of using evidence-based approaches to help ensure quality patient care. This article highlights practical strategies for helping diabetes care providers maintain an evidence-based practice. Topical content includes 1) an overview of common types of evidence available, 2) recommendations for useful resources to find the evidence, and 3) examples of strategies that diabetes care providers could use to stay informed regarding available evidence.

Conclusion. By using available resources to personally examine the evidence, diabetes care providers can make informed decisions regarding ways to optimally educate and treat patients using the best practices available. Guidelines for enhancing acquisition of best evidence and integrating the evidence into daily practice include being familiar with the types of evidence available; knowing where to find the best sources of evidence to inform practice; keeping current on landmark randomized, controlled trials in the field; and using the evidence in clinical practice by applying evidence in daily clinical decision-making.

As clinicians invested in patient care and well-being, diabetes care providers strive to provide patients with the best and most current information and care available. Research findings can help support diabetes care providers in their practice. This has been described as evidence-based practice.1 A primary goal of evidence-based practice is to support clinicians in efforts to treat patients using the best approaches available, including medical, educational, and behavioral interventions. Evidence-based practice involves reviewing available evidence from published research in a systematic manner, synthesizing the findings, and using the findings to answer questions and make decisions related to clinical practice.

To optimize diabetes prevention, education, and care, the information obtained from critical review of available evidence can be used to translate current research findings into clinical practice. Conducting critical review of available evidence can be used across the multidisciplinary diabetes care team and in many ways, such as to 1) help individual diabetes care providers remain current and make informed decisions about the selection and use of educational, behavioral, and clinical approaches (i.e., best practice); 2) help decision-makers develop standards of care; 3) help organizations develop standards for program accreditation; 4) inform other providers, disciplines, and entities about best practices in diabetes care; and 5) guide reimbursement decisions. Because much has been written about the importance of using evidence-based approaches to help ensure quality patient care,2 this article highlights practical strategies for helping busy diabetes care providers maintain an evidence-based practice.

Evidence-based medicine has a long history,3 and the introduction of the Internet has provided clinicians access to massive amounts of research and clinical information. With the current availability of such a high volume of information from diverse sources, it would be impossible for anyone to read each clinically relevant article. In fact, it has been estimated that to keep current with the latest evidence, family medicine clinicians would have to spend 20 hours each day reading journal articles.4 Clearly, help is needed to support busy clinicians in identifying, understanding, and efficiently applying the best available research evidence to their practices (i.e., translation). To help with this seemingly daunting task, this article provides 1) an overview of common types of evidence available to diabetes care providers; 2) recommendations for useful resources to find the evidence; and 3) examples of strategies that diabetes care providers can use to stay informed regarding available evidence.

Finding and Evaluating Evidence

Overview of common types of evidence

Unfortunately, not all evidence is created equal. The amount of reading time required to keep up with best practices can be reduced by knowing the types and quality of the research articles available and how to evaluate the strength or quality of the research findings or evidence base used to develop practice recommendations.5 Figure 1 highlights definitions and examples of key types of evidence.6 At the base of the pyramid are individual studies, and these form the evidence base for the layers above, including syntheses (e.g., systematic reviews), synopses (e.g., evidence base libraries), and summaries (Table 1). Examples of individual studies include case series and reports, case-control studies, cohort studies, and randomized, controlled trials (RCTs).

Useful resources for finding evidence

The information listed below describes useful resources for finding evidence pertaining to diabetes care. Descriptions of the different types of resources are followed by suggested strategies for using these resources to stay informed.

Evaluation or grading of evidence. Many resources are available to assist in the evaluation or grading of the evidence from different types of studies, such as the Cochrane Systematic Reviews of Interventions, which describes the process of preparing and maintaining systematic reviews on the effects of health care interventions;7 the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system, which uses a tiered approach to grading the quality of evidence in a study for a particular outcome;8 and the Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT), which rates and grades individual studies for patient- and disease-oriented evidence.9

Several standards, such as type of study and level of rigor in study methodology, have been adopted across types of systems, and many organizations have used this as the basis for the development of their own guidelines for evaluating the relevant research evidence base to develop clinical guidelines. As an example of evidence grading for studies relevant to diabetes education, the recent Guidelines for the Practice of Diabetes Education10 were based on review and grading of evidence relating to diabetes self-management education and training (DSME/T). This endeavor used the approach of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists,11 which is based on generally accepted evaluations of standards for evidence-based medicine. The guidelines describe the criteria for rating levels of evidence and the process of grading the evidence related to each of the domains of DSME/T.10

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

The 5 S's evidence pyramid. Reproduced with permission from and based on Ref. 6.

RCTs, multicenter trials with rigorous methodology, and large meta-analyses with quality ratings are generally considered to provide the strongest sources of evidence.11,12 Examples of landmark RCTs that have informed diabetes prevention and care practice include the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT),13,14 the U.K. Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS),15,16 and the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP).17,18 Examples of others underway include the Action for Health in Diabetes (LookAHEAD)19 and Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD)20 trials. Diabetes care providers across disciplines are encouraged to review methodologies and treatment protocols of these RCTs to help guide their specific practices.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 1.

The Five Sources of Evidence and Samples of Where to Find Each Level of Evidence from the Evidence Pyramid*

Strategies for using evaluations or graded evidence. As an example of using RCT data to inform practice, providers might want to review landmark trials to learn optimal approaches to setting individualized goals for blood glucose control and cardiovascular risk reduction for high-risk patients who are living with type 2 diabetes. Given familiarity with earlier research, providers might be interested in updates on the costs and benefits of pursuing tight control. An examination of the evidence would reveal three recent major RCTs that could provide helpful guidance.

The ACCORD trial20, the Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease: Preterax and Diamicron Modified Release Controlled Evaluation (ADVANCE) trial21,22, and the Veterans Affairs Diabetes Trial (VADT)23,24 all were large, well-controlled, long-term RCTs that compared the effects of intensive versus standard glycemic control on cardiovascular outcomes in adults with type 2 diabetes. The results, overall, did not show significant reduction in cardiovascular disease (CVD) outcomes with intensive glycemic control. However, the evidence did indicate that some individuals and subgroups (with fewer health problems and lower risks for hypoglycemia) showed benefits. Familiarity with these studies could assist providers in making informed decisions regarding goal-setting based on individual patient characteristics.

Medical society, medical school, and health care quality organization summaries and standards. Health professionals generally turn to experts for help in navigating the huge volume of ever-emerging evidence and for guidance about which evidence to incorporate, relying especially on medical specialty societies, medical schools, and health care quality organizations, such as the National Quality Forum and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). In addition, panels of clinical experts are used to sort through current research and work with established guidelines to assess whether interventions (e.g., drugs or behaviors) are considered effective enough to be declared evidence-based. These recognized groups can serve as valuable resources for synopses and summaries to help guide practice. In particular, it has been suggested that systematic reviews (syntheses), meta-analyses (syntheses) of RCTs, and evidence-based practice guidelines (summaries) are considered to provide the strongest level of evidence to inform clinical practice decisions.12 Therefore, it is crucial to keep current on any published syntheses, synopses, or summaries related to practice.

Strategies for using summaries and standards. There have been recent meta-analyses on a variety of important topics related to diabetes care, such as efficacy of pharmacist-based interventions,25 self-management programs for older adults,26 and the impact of depression on patient adherence.27 The annually updated American Diabetes Association (ADA) Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes, published each January, is an excellent example of evidence-based practice guidelines.28 The 2010 Standards review the recent ADVANCE, ACCORD, and VADT trials mentioned above in the context of the practice guidelines.28

Systematic reviews. Systematic reviews are commonly used to synthesize evidence for specific areas of care or patient populations. These structured literature reviews objectively and systematically search, identify, and summarize the available evidence that addresses a specific clinical question, paying particular attention to methodological quality.29 With this approach, the relevant literature is critically appraised, and the data are extracted and synthesized to formulate findings from the identified evidence base.

Strategies for using systematic review evidence. As an example, a series of systematic reviews in diabetes education addressed specific self-care behaviors, including healthy eating, physical activity, self-monitoring, medication-taking, problem solving, healthy coping, and reducing risks.30 These reviews identified, evaluated, and synthesized published studies in an explicit and systematic manner, thereby helping readers become familiar with the process used by researchers to conduct the systematic reviews and to independently assess the results.

Computerized support systems. Health care systems may provide computerized decision support approaches, such as electronic medical records, to guide optimal and evidence-based patient care.

Strategies for using computerized support systems. Computerized decision support systems have been found to increase accuracy in patient diagnosis and care.31 However, a review of relevant studies indicates that this approach has not yet been widely adopted.31

Using Evidence to Inform Clinical Care

The approaches described above illustrate the underpinnings of evidence-based methods of evaluating research. Diabetes care can be well informed by using these strategies. As history has shown, evidence and data do not immediately translate into evidence-based practice. For example, it has been estimated that there is a 17-year lag, on average, in translation of scientific findings into everyday clinical practice.32

Fortunately, numerous resources have been developed to help busy professionals reduce the time they need to keep informed about the latest research evidence affecting practice. These resources synthesize and critically evaluate the available research literature to support evidence-based best practices. Examples of such resources include the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Cochrane Reviews)33 and the American College of Physicians (ACP) Physicians' Information and Education Resource (PIER), which provides evidence-based guidance on clinical topics.34 Many institutions subscribe to resources such as Up to Date, which provides evidence-based, peer-reviewed topic reviews that may be accessed by computer or mobile device.35

Organizations may offer resources for providers both across and within disciplines. The American Dietetic Association provides the Evidence Analysis Library (EAL), a searchable database, for its members. Members of the American Association of Diabetes Educators (AADE) can also access this resource. EAL allows users to identify and access resources for a specific condition (e.g., diabetic neuropathy), intervention type (e.g., structured physical activity), and outcome (e.g., A1C, cholesterol, or blood pressure). Users are then able to identify recommended treatment or intervention options determined to be effective.

The AADE members' Web site provides links to several organizational initiatives and publications that address diabetes education research findings and strategies on how to translate them into practice.36

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Division of Diabetes Translation provides access to the CDC Community Guide as an additional resource. This guide synthesizes and makes recommendations about a variety of diabetes-related topics.37 Specific resources related to DSME/T include Task Force on Community Preventive Services Recommendations and Findings Related to Case Management Interventions to Improve Glycemic Control; Disease Management Programs; and Self-Management Education in Community Gathering Places. Related guide topics include Promoting Physical Activity, Obesity Prevention, and Worksite Health Promotion. An overview of resources that diabetes care providers may use to obtain data and recommendations based on evidence-based reviews is provided in Table 2.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 2.

Resources to Help Diabetes Care Providers Find Evidence

Using multiple resources to locate pertinent evidence may provide convergent and complementary information. The following case studies illustrate the use of these resources to find evidence to support practice recommendations.

Case study 1

A primary care provider consults with a diabetes care provider about a 65-year-old male patient with type 2 diabetes and peripheral neuropathy who has expressed interest in beginning a weight-training program at his gym. The primary care provider has inquired about the utility and safety of this plan.

Resources consulted. The diabetes care and primary care providers could examine the 2010 ADA Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes28 for information about the effectiveness of resistance exercise training in older men with type 2 diabetes. The Standards cite several well-designed RCTs focusing on older men with type 2 diabetes. These trials indicate that resistance training has the same or an even greater impact on A1C as aerobic activity and has an additive benefit to aerobic exercise in this population.

An additional examination of the Cochrane Reviews (see Table 1) may be helpful, especially because this resource permits searching and browsing by topic. In this case, a review on exercise for people with peripheral neuropathy is available. The review is based on studies with heterogeneous samples of adults with peripheral neuropathy, including those with diabetes. Although review of study designs and findings in this area does not result in adequate evidence to evaluate the effect of exercise on disability in people living with peripheral neuropathy, it does suggest that strength training moderately improves muscle strength in adults with peripheral neuropathy.

Outcome. The clinician could use information gleaned from these reviews to provide guidance to the patient based on current best-practice evidence. Based on the available empirical data, the primary care provider could advise the patient that resistance training offers numerous benefits and approve the participation in weight training.

Case study 2

A diabetes educator is working with a 50-year-old man with type 2 diabetes and CVD. He has requested information about optimal nutrition, and the educator would like to provide him with current, evidence-based recommendations.

Resources consulted. A search of diabetes and CVD on the EAL Web site (see Table 1) reveals that a systematic literature review addresses the question, What is the evidence supporting specific nutrition interventions in the treatment of CVD in people with diabetes?

Outcome. From this review, the educator learns that well-controlled studies indicate good strength of evidence that Mediterranean diets and reduced-sodium diets positively affect endothelial function, blood pressure, and lipids in adults with CVD and diabetes. This search and the information it yields informs the educator's recommendations for optimal, evidence-based dietary recommendations.

Case study 3

An interdisciplinary diabetes care team has discussed approaches to CVD and diabetes risk factor reduction, including health behavior change for diet and diabetes management. The behavioral medicine team member suggests cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) strategies for intervention in outpatient and clinic settings. Some team members have heard of this approach for treating depression and would like information about the studies that have been done with health behavior change.

Resources consulted. Team members access EAL. They find a systematic review examining CBT approaches to health- and food-related behavior change to reduce diabetes and CVD risk factors, promote weight loss, and support diabetes management.

Outcome. The review the team located summarized and graded studies of short-term CBT (of 6 months' duration), intermediate duration CBT (of 6–13 months' duration), and long-term CBT (of > 12 months' duration). The review indicated good supporting evidence that CBT provides benefits for dietary behavior change such as decreased fat and sodium intake and increased consumption of fruit and vegetables. In addition, it included strong evidence supporting intensive intermediate and long-term CBT aimed at diabetes prevention or onset delay (e.g., as used in the DPP) or improvement in hypertension and other CVD risk factors. The team found that program materials based on CBT use in the DPP are available online (see Table 1). Knowledge of such evidence guided the team in their decision-making regarding the use of this approach and in their subsequent program planning.

Summary: Implications of Evidence-Based Research for Diabetes Practice

To make informed decisions, diabetes care providers are encouraged to follow four guidelines: 1) become familiar with the types of evidence available, 2) know where to find the best sources of evidence to inform practice, 3) keep current on landmark RCTs in the field, and 4) use the evidence available by applying it in daily clinical decision-making.

It is also important to note that other factors influence the diffusion and adoption of evidence-based innovations into clinical practice. Bradley et al.38 identified the following factors as necessary in hastening the adoption of research into evidence-based practice:

  1. Strong support of senior management at the adopting organization is essential. Administrative support in a key position to make management changes (senior management) is necessary to implement clinical improvements. Therefore, having an administrative champion is crucial to support the adoption of new evidence-based approaches.

  2. Effective clinical leadership in adopter organizations speeds up adoption. Involving clinical leaders (e.g., nurse managers or a respected peer) who are credible to clinicians and understand organizational dynamics (e.g., cultural norms, organizational decision-making patterns, and established treatment protocols) can help in championing the adoption of new evidence-based research findings into practice.

  3. Data to support start-up, implementation, and ongoing evaluation of evidence-based initiatives must be credible and persuasive. Adopting evidence-based research findings into practice makes good sense not only from a clinical perspective, but also from a business perspective. Improvements in the delivery of clinical care based on evidence-based research helps to improve overall quality. Administrators can see the added value of evidence-based innovations that can help the organization fulfill its strategic business goals. Diabetes care providers can access numerous resources and publications that address the large evidence base demonstrating the cost-effectiveness of implementing interventions from the DPP39 and the DCCT.40 Full publications lists and links for each landmark trial are available from the Web sites shown in references 39 and 40.

In conclusion, by using the available resources described in this article, administrators, clinical leaders, and diabetes care providers can actively and effectively examine the evidence for themselves. This can better position diabetes care providers to make informed decisions for providing patient education and care based on the best available practices.

Footnotes

  • Barbara A. Stetson, PhD, is an associate professor in the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences at the University of Louisville in Kentucky. Laurie Ruggiero, PhD, is a professor of community health sciences in the Institute for Health Research and Policy at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Leonard L. Jack, Jr., PhD, MSc, is associate dean for research; director of the Center for Minority Health, Health Disparities; the research and education endowed chair of Minority Health Disparities; and a professor in the Division of Clinical and Administrative Services, College of Pharmacy, at Xavier University of Louisiana in New Orleans.

  • American Diabetes Association(R) Inc., 2010

References

  1. ↵
    1. Sackett D,
    2. Richardson W,
    3. Rosenberg W,
    4. Haynes R
    : Evidence-Based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM. New York, Churchill-Livingstone, 1997
  2. ↵
    1. Anderson RM,
    2. Funnell MM
    : The art and science of diabetes education: a culture out of balance. Diabetes Educ 34:109-117, 2008
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Claridge JA,
    2. Fabian TC
    : History and development of evidence-based medicine. World J Surg 29:547-553, 2005
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  4. ↵
    1. Alper BS,
    2. Hand JA,
    3. Elliott SG,
    4. Kinkade S,
    5. Onion DK,
    6. Sklar BM
    : How much effort is needed to keep up with the literature relevant for primary care? J Med Library Assoc 92:429-437, 2004
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  5. ↵
    1. Straus S,
    2. Haynes RB
    : Managing evidence-based knowledge: the need for reliable, relevant and readable resources. CMAJ 180:942-945, 2009
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Haynes RB
    : Of studies, syntheses, synopses, summaries, and systems: the ``5S'' evolution of information services for health care decisions. ACP J Club 145:A8-A9, 2006
    OpenUrlPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Higgins J,
    2. Green S
    (Eds.): Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, version 5.0.1 [publication online]. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org. Accessed 16 June 2009
  8. ↵
    1. Atkins D,
    2. Best D,
    3. Briss PA,
    4. Eccles M,
    5. Falck-Ytter Y,
    6. Flottorp S,
    7. Guyatt GH,
    8. Harbour RT,
    9. Haugh MC,
    10. Henry D,
    11. Hill S,
    12. Jaeschke R,
    13. Leng G,
    14. Liberati A,
    15. Magrini N,
    16. Mason J,
    17. Middleton P,
    18. Mrukowicz J,
    19. O'Connell D,
    20. Oxman AD,
    21. Phillips B,
    22. Schünemann HJ,
    23. Edejer TT,
    24. Varonen H,
    25. Vist GE,
    26. Williams JW Jr.,
    27. Zaza S
    ; GRADE Working Group: Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 328:1490, 2004
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. Ebell MH,
    2. Siwek J,
    3. Weiss BD,
    4. Woolf SH,
    5. Susman J,
    6. Ewigman B,
    7. Bowman M
    : Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT): a patient-centered approach to grading evidence in the medical literaure. Am Fam Phys 69:549-556, 2004
    OpenUrl
  10. ↵
    American Assocation of Diabetes Educators: Guidelines for the practice of diabetes education [article online]. Available from http://www.diabeteseducator.org/DiabetesEducation/position/Practice_Guidelines.html. Accessed 16 June 2009
  11. ↵
    American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists Ad Hoc Task Force for Standardized Production of Clinical Practice Guidelines: American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists protocol for standardized production of clinical practice guidelines. Endocr Pract 10:353-361, 2004
    OpenUrlPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Melnyk BM
    : Integrating levels of evidence into clinical decision-making. Pediatr Nurs 30:323-325, 2004
    OpenUrlPubMed
  13. ↵
    DCCT Research Group: Effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 329:977-986, 1993
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  14. ↵
    DCCT Research Group: Relationship of glycemic exposure (A1C) to the risk of development and progression of retinopathy in the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial. Diabetes 44:968-983, 1995
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. ↵
    U.K. Prospective Diabetes Study Group: UK Prospective Diabetes Study VIII: study design, progress and performance. Diabetologia 34:877-890, 1991
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  16. ↵
    U.K. Prospective Diabetes Study Group: Tight blood pressure control and risk of macrovascular and microvascular complications in type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 38). BMJ 317:703-713, 1998
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. ↵
    DPP Research Group: The Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP): description of lifestyle intervention. Diabetes Care 25:2165-2171, 2002
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. ↵
    1. Delahanty LM,
    2. Nathan DM
    : Implications of the Diabetes Prevention Program and LookAHEAD clinical trials for lifestyle interventions. J Am Dietetic Assoc 108(Suppl. 1):S66-S72, 2008
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  19. ↵
    1. Pi-Sunyer X,
    2. Blackburn G,
    3. Brancati FL,
    4. Bray GA,
    5. Bright R,
    6. Clark JM,
    7. Curtis JM,
    8. Espeland MA,
    9. Foreyt JP,
    10. Graves K,
    11. Haffner SM,
    12. Harrison B,
    13. Hill JO,
    14. Horton ES,
    15. Jakicic J,
    16. Jeffery RW,
    17. Johnson KC,
    18. Kahn S,
    19. Kelley DE,
    20. Kitabchi AE,
    21. Knowler WC,
    22. Lewis CE,
    23. Maschak-Carey BJ,
    24. Montgomery B,
    25. Nathan DM,
    26. Patricio J,
    27. Peters A,
    28. Redmon JB,
    29. Reeves RS,
    30. Ryan DH,
    31. Safford M,
    32. Van Dorsten B,
    33. Wadden TA,
    34. Wagenknecht L,
    35. Wesche-Thobaben J,
    36. Wing RR,
    37. Yanovski SZ
    Look AHEAD Research Group: Pi-Sunyer X, Blackburn G, Brancati FL, Bray GA, Bright R, Clark JM, Curtis JM, Espeland MA, Foreyt JP, Graves K, Haffner SM, Harrison B, Hill JO, Horton ES, Jakicic J, Jeffery RW, Johnson KC, Kahn S, Kelley DE, Kitabchi AE, Knowler WC, Lewis CE, Maschak-Carey BJ, Montgomery B, Nathan DM, Patricio J, Peters A, Redmon JB, Reeves RS, Ryan DH, Safford M, Van Dorsten B, Wadden TA, Wagenknecht L, Wesche-Thobaben J, Wing RR, Yanovski SZ: Reduction in weight and cardiovascular disease risk factors in individuals with type 2 diabetes: one-year results of the Look AHEAD trial. Diabetes Care 30:1374-1383, 2007
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. ↵
    1. Buse JB,
    2. Bigger JT,
    3. Byington RP,
    4. Cooper LS,
    5. Cushman WC,
    6. Friedewald WT,
    7. Genuth S,
    8. Gerstein HC,
    9. Ginsberg HN,
    10. Goff DC Jr.,
    11. Grimm RH Jr.,
    12. Margolis KL,
    13. Probstfield JL,
    14. Simons-Morton DG,
    15. Sullivan MD
    ; ACCORD Study Group: Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial: design and methods. Am J Cardiol 99:21i-33i, 2007
    OpenUrlPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Chalmers J,
    2. Kengne AP,
    3. Joshi R,
    4. Perkovic V,
    5. Patel A
    : New insights from ADVANCE. J Hypertens 25 (Suppl. 1):S23-S30, 2007
    OpenUrl
  22. ↵
    1. Zoungas S,
    2. de Galan BE,
    3. Ninomiya T,
    4. Grobbee D,
    5. Hamet P,
    6. Heller S,
    7. MacMahon S,
    8. Marre M,
    9. Neal B,
    10. Patel A,
    11. Woodward M,
    12. Chalmers J,
    13. ADVANCE Collaborative Group,
    14. Cass A,
    15. Glasziou P,
    16. Harrap S,
    17. Lisheng L,
    18. Mancia G,
    19. Pillai A,
    20. Poulter N,
    21. Perkovic V,
    22. Travert F
    : Combined effects of routine blood pressure lowering and intensive glucose control on macrovascular and microvascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes: new results from the ADVANCE trial. Diabetes Care 32:2068-2074, 2009
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. ↵
    1. Abraira C,
    2. Duckworth W,
    3. McCarren M,
    4. Emanuele N,
    5. Arca D,
    6. Reda D,
    7. Henderson W
    : Design of the cooperative study on glycemic control and complications in diabetes mellitus type 2: Veterans Affairs Diabetes Trial. J Diabetes Complications 17:314-322, 2003
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  24. ↵
    1. Duckworth W,
    2. Abraira C,
    3. Moritz T,
    4. Reda D,
    5. Emanuele N,
    6. Reaven PD,
    7. Zieve FJ,
    8. Marks J,
    9. Davis SN,
    10. Hayward R,
    11. Warren SR,
    12. Goldman S,
    13. McCarren M,
    14. Vitek ME,
    15. Henderson WG,
    16. Huang GD
    ; VADT Investigators: Glucose control and vascular complications in veterans with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 360:129-139, 2009
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  25. ↵
    1. Machado M,
    2. Bajcar J,
    3. Guzzo GC,
    4. Einarson TR
    : Sensitivity of patient outcomes to pharmacist interventions. Part 1: Systematic review and meta-analysis in diabetes management. Ann Pharmacother 41:1569-1582, 2007
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  26. ↵
    1. Chodosh J,
    2. Morton SC,
    3. Mojica W,
    4. Maglione M,
    5. Suttorp MJ,
    6. Hilton L,
    7. Rhodes S,
    8. Shekelle P
    : Meta-analysis: chronic disease self-management programs for older adults. Ann Intern Med 143:427-438, 2005
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  27. ↵
    1. Gonzalez JS,
    2. Peyrot M,
    3. McCarl LA,
    4. Collins EM,
    5. Serpa L,
    6. Mimiaga MJ,
    7. Safren SA
    : Depression and diabetes treatment nonadherence: a meta-analysis. Diabetes Care 31:2398-2403, 2008
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. ↵
    American Diabetes Association: Standards of medical care in diabetes—2010. Diabetes Care 33(Suppl. 1):S11-S61, 2010
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  29. ↵
    1. Oxman A,
    2. Guyatt GH,
    3. Cook D,
    4. Montori V
    : Summarizing the Evidence. Chicago, American Medical Association Press, 2002
  30. ↵
    1. Boren SA
    : AADE7 self-care behaviors: systematic reviews. Diabetes Educ 33:866-871, 2007
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  31. ↵
    1. Garg A,
    2. Adkikari NKJ,
    3. McDonald H,
    4. Rosas-Arellano MP,
    5. Devereaux PJ,
    6. Beyene J,
    7. Sam J,
    8. Haynes RB
    : Effects of computerized clinical decision support systems on practitioner performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review. JAMA 293:1223-1238, 2005
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  32. ↵
    1. Van Bemmel J,
    2. McCray AT
    1. Balas E,
    2. Boren SA
    : Managing clinical knowledge for health care improvement. In Yearbook of Medical Informatics. Van Bemmel J, McCray AT, Eds. Stuttgart, Germany, Schattauer Verlagsgesellschaft, 2000, p. 65-70
  33. ↵
    Cochrane Library: Evidence for healthcare decision-making [article online]. Available from http://mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/cochrane_clsysrev_articles_fs.html. Accessed 17 June 2009
  34. ↵
    Up to Date: Tap into the world's largest clinical community [article online]. Available from http://www.uptodate.com/home/index.html. Accessed 21 June 2010
  35. ↵
    American College of Physicians: PIER Physicians' Information and Education Resource: welcome [article online]. Available from http://pier.acponline.org/index.html. Accessed 21 June 2010
  36. ↵
    American Association of Diabetes Educators: Professional resources [article online]. Available from http://www.diabeteseducator.org/ProfessionalResources. Accessed 24 June 2009
  37. ↵
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Guide to community preventive services [article online]. Available from http://www.thecommunityguide.org/index.html. Accessed 21 June 2010
  38. ↵
    1. Bradley EH,
    2. Tashonna WR,
    3. Baker D,
    4. Schlesinger M,
    5. Inouye SK
    : Translating research in practice: speeding the adoption of innovative health care programs [article online]. Available from http://www.commonwealthfund.org/programs/elders/bradley_translating_research_724.pdf. Accessed 21 June 2010
  39. ↵
    Diabetes Prevention Program: Registry of published manuscripts [article online]. Available from http://www.bsc.gwu.edu/dpp/pps/registry.cgi. Accessed 21 June 2010
  40. ↵
    NIDDK Central Repository: Publications [article online]. Available from https://www.niddkrepository.org/niddk/jsp/public/EDIC/EDICPublications.jsp;jsessionid=0a60c06630d804e3d5ab71e14db69981b58495062210.e34OaNaLc34QbO0LbhqNah8Rax0Me6fznA5Pp7ftolbGmkTy. Accessed 21 June 2010
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this Issue

October 2010, 23(4)
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by Author
Sign up to receive current issue alerts
View Selected Citations (0)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about Diabetes Spectrum.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Strategies for Improving the Acquisition and Integration of Evidence Into Diabetes Care
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Diabetes Spectrum
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the Diabetes Spectrum web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Strategies for Improving the Acquisition and Integration of Evidence Into Diabetes Care
Barbara A. Stetson, Laurie Ruggiero, Leonard L. Jack
Diabetes Spectrum Oct 2010, 23 (4) 246-253; DOI: 10.2337/diaspect.23.4.246

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Add to Selected Citations
Share

Strategies for Improving the Acquisition and Integration of Evidence Into Diabetes Care
Barbara A. Stetson, Laurie Ruggiero, Leonard L. Jack
Diabetes Spectrum Oct 2010, 23 (4) 246-253; DOI: 10.2337/diaspect.23.4.246
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Finding and Evaluating Evidence
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Tables
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Feasibility of Implementing a Pediatric Diabetes Clinic via Telehealth
  • Impact of Diabetes on Hospitalized Patients With Chronic Medical Conditions
  • Diabetes Distress, Daily Functioning, and A1C in Older Black Individuals With Diabetes and Mild Cognitive Impairment
Show more Feature Article

Similar Articles

Navigate

  • Current Issue
  • Papers in Press
  • Archives
  • Submit
  • Subscribe
  • Email Alerts
  • RSS Feeds

More Information

  • About the Journal
  • Instructions for Authors
  • Journal Policies
  • Reprints and Permissions
  • Advertising
  • Privacy Policy: ADA Journals
  • Copyright Notice/Public Access Policy
  • Contact Us

Other ADA Resources

  • Diabetes
  • Diabetes Care
  • Clinical Diabetes
  • Scientific Sessions Abstracts
  • Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes
  • BMJ Open - Diabetes Research & Care
  • Professional Books
  • Diabetes Forecast

 

  • DiabetesJournals.org
  • Diabetes Core Update
  • ADA's DiabetesPro
  • ADA Member Directory
  • Diabetes.org

© 2021 by the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Spectrum Print ISSN: 1040-9165, Online ISSN: 1944-7353.