Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Install the app
Install
Reply to Thread
Guest, we'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the
Diabetes Forum Survey 2024 »
Home
Forums
Diabetes Discussion
Diabetes Discussions
To test or not to test...
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="DiabeticGeek" data-source="post: 10009" data-attributes="member: 7961"><p>Any of these are scary and depressing possibilities. I have a horrible suspicion that you are right and cost is at the heart of this. In particular, the way the nurse instantly came up with the same arguments as the GP suggests to me that she was following a "party line". However, to be charitable to them, there is some controversy about this given the recent BMJ articles. I expect that these have already been discussed here, so apologies if I am rehashing old ground, but one of them is on the <a href="http://www.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/bmj.39534.571644.BEv1" target="_blank">efficacy of self-monitoring</a> [<a href="http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/bmj.39534.571644.BEv1" target="_blank">responses to this</a>] and the other on its <a href="http://www.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/bmj.39526.674873.BE" target="_blank">cost-effectiveness</a> [<a href="http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/bmj.39526.674873.BEv1" target="_blank">responses to this</a>] - both for newly diagnosed T2. If you look at these also make sure to read the responses - they are more interesting than the articles! In short the first is saying that most people in their study (which forced them to follow a rigid year-long pro gramme of testing) ignore the results, <em>ergo</em> there is no benefit. The second says that testing is expensive and hence not cost-effective. In short, as far as I can see these are arguments against testing that is done badly rather than testing <em>per se</em>.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="DiabeticGeek, post: 10009, member: 7961"] Any of these are scary and depressing possibilities. I have a horrible suspicion that you are right and cost is at the heart of this. In particular, the way the nurse instantly came up with the same arguments as the GP suggests to me that she was following a "party line". However, to be charitable to them, there is some controversy about this given the recent BMJ articles. I expect that these have already been discussed here, so apologies if I am rehashing old ground, but one of them is on the [url=http://www.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/bmj.39534.571644.BEv1]efficacy of self-monitoring[/url] [[url=http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/bmj.39534.571644.BEv1]responses to this[/url]] and the other on its [url=http://www.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/bmj.39526.674873.BE]cost-effectiveness[/url] [[url=http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/bmj.39526.674873.BEv1]responses to this[/url]] - both for newly diagnosed T2. If you look at these also make sure to read the responses - they are more interesting than the articles! In short the first is saying that most people in their study (which forced them to follow a rigid year-long pro gramme of testing) ignore the results, [i]ergo[/i] there is no benefit. The second says that testing is expensive and hence not cost-effective. In short, as far as I can see these are arguments against testing that is done badly rather than testing [i]per se[/i]. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post Reply
Home
Forums
Diabetes Discussion
Diabetes Discussions
To test or not to test...
Top
Bottom
Find support, ask questions and share your experiences. Ad free.
Join the community »
This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn More.…