Aggregate evidence quality | D (expert consensus). |
Benefit | Potential for improved metabolic control, improved potential for prevention of hypoglycemia, decreased long-term complications. |
Harm | Patient discomfort, cost of materials. |
Benefits-harms assessment | Benefit over harm. |
Value judgments | Despite lack of evidence, there were general committee perceptions that patient safety concerns related to insulin use or clinical status outweighed any risks from monitoring. |
Role of patient preferences | Moderate to low; recommendation driven primarily by safety concerns. |
Exclusions | None. |
Intentional vagueness | Intentional vagueness in the recommendation about specific approaches attributable to lack of evidence and the need to individualize treatment. |
Policy level | Option. |
Aggregate evidence quality | D (expert consensus). |
Benefit | Potential for improved metabolic control, improved potential for prevention of hypoglycemia, decreased long-term complications. |
Harm | Patient discomfort, cost of materials. |
Benefits-harms assessment | Benefit over harm. |
Value judgments | Despite lack of evidence, there were general committee perceptions that patient safety concerns related to insulin use or clinical status outweighed any risks from monitoring. |
Role of patient preferences | Moderate to low; recommendation driven primarily by safety concerns. |
Exclusions | None. |
Intentional vagueness | Intentional vagueness in the recommendation about specific approaches attributable to lack of evidence and the need to individualize treatment. |
Policy level | Option. |