A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@remsenmedia.com&api_key=81853a771c3a3a2c6b2553a65bc33b056f08&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Pharmacy diabetes screening trial (PDST): Outcomes of a national clustered RCT comparing three screening methods for undiagnosed type 2 diabetes (T2DM) in community pharmacy. | LitMetric

Pharmacy diabetes screening trial (PDST): Outcomes of a national clustered RCT comparing three screening methods for undiagnosed type 2 diabetes (T2DM) in community pharmacy.

Diabetes Res Clin Pract

Deakin Health Economics, Institute for Health Transformation, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia; Deakin Rural Health, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Warnambool, Victoria, Australia.

Published: March 2023

Aims: To compare the effectiveness of three pharmacy-based screening methods for type 2 diabetes (T2DM): (1) risk assessment (AUSDRISK) alone (Group A); AUSDRISK followed by a point of care test if AUSDRISK ≥12; either (2) HbA1c (Group B); or (3) small capillary blood glucose test (Group C).

Methods: A cluster RCT with a nationally representative sample of Australian pharmacies was implemented with random allocation of eligible pharmacies to Groups A, B or C. GP referral was based on prespecified cut offs. Diagnoses were considered positive if confirmed by a GP, pathology laboratory, or national diabetes register.

Results: Of the 14,093 people screened in 339 pharmacies, 3059 participants met group-specific referral criteria: 1775 (45%) (Group A); 893 (17%) (Group B); and 391 (8%) (Group C). For the total screened population rates of T2DM diagnoses were significantly higher in Group B (1.5%), compared with Groups A (< 0.8%) and C (< 0.6%) with the odds of detection in Group B compared with Group A (1.8 [1.0;3.0]), and no difference between Groups A and C.

Conclusions: In community pharmacy, the most effective method to uncover undiagnosed T2DM was a stepwise approach; initial risk assessment; and if appropriate an HbA1C POC test and referral.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2023.110566DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

group
9
screening methods
8
type diabetes
8
diabetes t2dm
8
community pharmacy
8
risk assessment
8
pharmacy diabetes
4
diabetes screening
4
screening trial
4
trial pdst
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!