Type 1 diabetes clinical guide

This guide focuses on key issues that affect the attention of people (adults, children
and pregnant women) with DM1 and addresses issues related to the diagnosis, the
prognosis, screening, treatment, acute and chronic complications and with the follow -up
Disease clinic.

It is a technical, but very complete publication ... except for the ridiculous space dedicated to insulin pumps and continuous meters.

Downloadable in pdf:

Do not put it to give birth, that I have participated and I go out in the credits: Oops :: oops :: oops:

"Although continuous glucose monitoring can be an instrument
to improve or maintain metabolic control in motivated patients and
trained in intensive treatment, provided it is used continuously,
Its universal use for people with diabetes mellitus is not recommended
Type 1 ".

We start well, I do not agree, the continuous meter is a before and after in the treatment of diabetes, an improvement in impressive quality of life, the strips offer biased information, the meter offers trends, very valuable to control diabetes, that there will be people who are not trained or want to carry a meter, I agree.The meter is for me the best method to lead a "normal" life and have the hemo between 6 and 7, and how my son tries.

Do not put it to give birth, which I have participated and I go out in the credits: Oops :: oops :: oops:

With more reason :)) :))

I always "never" negative "

Well look, I hadn't noticed your collaboration ... and I like that.
Patient's participation is always essential.

I have already written the critical review of the guide.

You can read it on my website:

amazing that recommends reusing needles ...

I have left some things in the inkwell ... like the positive participation of patients, something that almost never happens.

Owash, thanks for the comments on your website but next time you don't use yellow on a gray background that is an attack on the eyes ;-)

Thanks for the suggestion.
It is a technical theme when writing the content, it comes out by default ... I think I have already solved it: Oops:

How you curd it, Owash !!!!Thank you!!!

An thorough analysis.awesome.

What gives me the most anger is that you say what you say, if there is no corresponding study, you cannot get anything that does not have their level of evidence.And I do not understand how effectively, as you say, it can be said that needles can be reused, or to click on the gut instead of "anywhere."

I accept the possible part of guilt in the final result, although honestly, I am not on equal terms with the rest of the preparing team.And I don't have access to studies that endorse each of the guide's assertions.Personally, I was clear that we cannot include in a guide the things we would like to include.They stick to the script and the Bible of studies.And ball point.But I value that it has been done with patients, I value that a "special" version for young people has been published, and I value that we now have at least an updated GPC.
By the way, how often is a GPC reviewed or updated?

Oh, and I agree with what you say that we should have access to it all patients and that is properly disseminated.We have not applied sufficiently in associations and federations.

After giving it up, the 5 aspects that I have commented are the ones that have caught my attention ... but other things are still missing, I think that in the coming weeks I can write the second part.
I would like to stop bombs and sensors because I think it gives for the debate.

It is that in the theme of needles there is material ... the "problem" is that it is observational, not scientific (as a scientific method: blind, randomized, etc.)
That is why the serious thing is that without scientific evidence they are able to make 2 recommendations of that style: reuse the needles and puncture over the clothes ... is that it is amazing.

GPCs are updated when there is scientific evidence that justifies it ... although the guide itself declares that they seek to adapt it every 5 years.

This gives a lot of debate, but one of our defects as patients and as patient associations is to place ourselves at a lower level than doctors and medical societies.We are neither superiors nor are we lower.
I do not say it for you, Gondrullo ... I say it in general.
Medicine, medical literature, is not the exclusive heritage of graduates in medicine ... much less in something like diabetes.
I have to look for an article where he talks about this:-/ ... it was a very good study where medical-patient relationships measured;Those with horizontal relationships based on trust and mutual help obtained better health results than those in which the relationship was vertical and was based on the hierarchy.
If my doctor prescribes something to me, I have to justify me why he chooses that and offer me more information, even being able to participate in my own treatment (within the logical health margins).

I am sure that the same type of collaboration could be done in the entities ... In fact, the advisory advice of diabetes (what times with the Fed) have been a good idea, until they stopped being joint and each one went on their own.

Anyway, that I roll up and then nobody reads my wandering.

I find the idea of ​​the guide fantastic, with many aspects to improve, with good intentions both in its elaboration (consultation of patients), their dissemination (they seem to make presentations in different places, but I have not seen any) as in theirFinal result (with many pastes).
The problem is that he reminds me of the national diabetes strategy ... In the end nobody pays attention to him, nor does it work for anything.

I like everything you said.I subscribe it lyrics.