Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: 10.1007/s11892-023-01504-4
Title: Comparative Analysis of Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Pharmacological Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Latin America
Authors: Taborda Restrepo, Paula Andrea
Acosta-Reyes, Jorge
Estupiñan-Bohorquez, Andrés
Barrios-Mercado, María Alejandra
Correa Gonzalez, Nestor Fabián
Taborda Restrepo, Alejandra
Barengo, Noël Christopher
Gabriel, Rafael
Keywords: Clinical practice guidelines;Drug therapy;Latin America;Type 2 diabetes mellitus;3.2 Clinical medicine;1.1. Scientific article indexed in Web of Science and/or Scopus database;Internal Medicine;Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism;SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
Issue Date: Jun-2023
Citation: Taborda Restrepo , P A , Acosta-Reyes , J , Estupiñan-Bohorquez , A , Barrios-Mercado , M A , Correa Gonzalez , N F , Taborda Restrepo , A , Barengo , N C & Gabriel , R 2023 , ' Comparative Analysis of Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Pharmacological Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Latin America ' , Current Diabetes Reports , vol. 23 , no. 6 , pp. 89-101 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11892-023-01504-4
Abstract: Purpose of Review: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is one of the leading causes of death and disability in the world. The majority of diabetes deaths (> 80%) occur in low- and middle-income countries, which are predominant in Latin America. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to compare the clinical practice guideline (CPG) for the pharmacological management of T2DM in Latin America (LA) with international reference guidelines. Recent Findings: Several LA countries have recently developed CPGs. However, the quality of these guidelines is unknown according to the AGREE II tool and taking as reference three CPGs of international impact: American Diabetes Association (ADA), European Diabetes Association (EASD), and Latin American Diabetes Association (ALAD). Summary: Ten CPGs were selected for analysis. The ADA scored > 80% on the AGREE II domains and was selected as the main comparator. Eighty percent of LA CPGs were developed before 2018. Only one was not recommended (all domains < 60%). The CPGs in LA have good quality but are outdated. They have significant gaps compared to the reference. There is a need for improvement, as proposing updates every three years to maintain the best available clinical evidence in all guidelines.
Description: Publisher Copyright: © 2023, The Author(s).
DOI: 10.1007/s11892-023-01504-4
ISSN: 1534-4827
Appears in Collections:Research outputs from Pure / Zinātniskās darbības rezultāti no ZDIS Pure

Files in This Item:


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.