Guideline Title
American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists medical guidelines for clinical practice for the management of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes management in the hospital setting.
Bibliographic Source(s)
| AACE Diabetes Mellitus Clinical Practice Guidelines Task Force. AACE diabetes mellitus guidelines. Diabetes management in the hospital setting. Endocr Pract 2007 May-Jun;13(Suppl 1):59-63. [67 references] |
Guideline Status
This is the current release of the guideline.
This guideline updates a previously published version: American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, American College of Endocrinology. Medical guidelines for the management of diabetes mellitus: the AACE system of intensive diabetes self-management--2002 update. Endocr Pract 2002 Jan-Feb;8(Suppl 1):40-82.
UMLS Concepts ( what's this?)
Click to view all guideline(s) indexed with these concepts
ICD9CM:
Diabetes mellitus, type I [insulin dependent type] [IDDM] [juvenile type], not stated as uncontrolled (250.31); Diabetes mellitus, type II [non-insulin dependent type] [NIDDM type] [adult-onset type] or unspecified type, not stated as uncontrolled (250.30); Hypoglycemia, unspecified (251.2)
MSH:
Blood Chemical Analysis; Blood Glucose; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Diabetes, Gestational; Diabetic Diet; Forms and Records Control; Glucose; Hospitalization; Hypoglycemia; Infusions, Intravenous; Insulin; Medical Records; Patient Care Planning; Patient Care Team; Patient Discharge; Patient Education as Topic; Point-of-Care Systems; Pregnancy Outcome
MTH:
Blood Chemical Analysis; Blood Glucose; Blood glucose measurement; Diabetes Mellitus, Insulin-Dependent; Diabetes Mellitus, Non-Insulin-Dependent; Gestational Diabetes; Glucohemoglobin measurement; Glucose; Hospitalization; Hypoglycemia; Insulin; Intravenous infusion procedures; Medical Records; Patient Discharge; Patient education (procedure)
PDQ:
hypoglycemia; insulin
SNOMEDCT:
Abnormal glucose tolerance in mother complicating pregnancy, childbirth AND/OR puerperium (39763004); Blood chemistry (166312007); Diabetes mellitus type 1 (46635009); Diabetes mellitus type 2 (44054006); Diabetic diet (160670007); Gestational diabetes mellitus (11687002); Glucohemoglobin measurement (40402000); Glucose (111138002); Glucose (67079006); Glucose measurement, blood (33747003); Hypoglycemia (237630007); Hypoglycemia (271327008); Hypoglycemia (302866003); Inpatient care (394656005); Insulin (39487003); Insulin (412222002); Insulin (67866001); Intravenous infusion (14152002); Medical record (129465004); Patient discharge (58000006); Patient education (311401005)
Hide...
|
Disease/Condition(s)
Diabetes mellitus, including:
- Type 1 diabetes
- Type 2 diabetes
- Gestational diabetes
Guideline Category
Diagnosis
Management
Risk Assessment
Screening
Treatment
Clinical Specialty
Cardiology
Endocrinology
Family Practice
Internal Medicine
Nursing
Nutrition
Obstetrics and Gynecology
Preventive Medicine
Intended Users
Advanced Practice Nurses
Dietitians
Nurses
Physician Assistants
Physicians
Guideline Objective(s)
To provide clinicians with clear and accessible guidelines to care for patients with diabetes mellitus
Target Population
Children, adolescents, and adults with or at risk of developing diabetes mellitus
Interventions and Practices Considered
- Glycemic management plan prior to hospital admission
- Data collection and record keeping
- Blood glucose concentration
- HbA1c level
- Point-of-care glucose monitoring
- Record diabetes mellitus on medical chart (if diagnosis known)
- Meal plan
- Target blood glucose levels: preprandial, postprandial, critically ill
- Insulin management plan
- Intravenous insulin infusion
- Subcutaneous insulin (scheduled insulin dosing, as needed dosing)
- Hypoglycemia prevention
- Modification of insulin therapy
- Intravenous concentrated dextrose
- Comanagement of patient with diabetes care professionals
- Hospital discharge planning
- Inpatient patient education
- Intensification of preadmission management plan
- Information on when patient should call the clinician
- Plan postdischarge follow-up visits
Major Outcomes Considered
- Blood glucose levels
- Morbidity and mortality
- Length of hospitalization
|
Methods Used to Collect/Select the Evidence
Hand-searches of Published Literature (Primary Sources)
Hand-searches of Published Literature (Secondary Sources)
Searches of Electronic Databases
Searches of Unpublished Data
Description of Methods Used to Collect/Select the Evidence
References were obtained by performing a computerized search of the literature using PubMed and other search engines; scanning incoming journals in the medical library; and reviewing references in publications relevant to diabetes including review articles, leading textbooks, and syllabi from national and international meetings.
Number of Source Documents
Methods Used to Assess the Quality and Strength of the Evidence
Weighting According to a Rating Scheme (Scheme Given)
Rating Scheme for the Strength of the Evidence
Levels of Substantiation in Evidence-Based Medicinea
| Level-of-Evidence Categoryb |
Study Design or Information Type |
Comments |
| 1 |
Randomized controlled trials
Multicenter trials
Large meta-analyses with quality ratings
|
Well-conducted, well-controlled trials at 1 or more medical centers
Data derived from a substantial number of trials with adequate power; substantial number of subjects and outcome data
Consistent pattern of findings in the population for which the recommendation is made – generalizable results
Compelling nonexperimental, clinically obvious evidence (e.g., use of insulin in diabetic ketoacidosis); "all or none" evidence
|
| 2 |
Randomized controlled trials
Prospective cohort studies
Meta-analyses of cohort studies
Case-control studies
|
Limited number of trials, small number of subjects
Well-conducted studies
Inconsistent findings or results not representative for the target population
|
| 3 |
Methodologically flawed randomized controlled trials
Nonrandomized controlled trials
Observational studies
Case series or case reports
|
Trials with 1 or more major or 3 or more minor methodologic flaws
Uncontrolled or poorly controlled trials
Retrospective or observational data
Conflicting data with weight of evidence unable to support a final recommendation
|
| 4 |
Expert consensus
Expert opinion based on experience
Theory-driven conclusions
Unproven claims
Experience-based information
|
Inadequate data for inclusion in level-of-evidence categories 1, 2, or 3; data necessitates an expert panel's synthesis of the literature and a consensus |
aAdapted from the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists Protocol for the Standardized Production of Clinical Practice Guidelines.
bLevel-of-evidence categories 1 through 3 indicate scientific substantiation or proof; level-of-evidence category 4 indicates unproven claims.
Methods Used to Analyze the Evidence
Systematic Review
Description of the Methods Used to Analyze the Evidence
The American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) Task force members reviewed selected reports and studies and rated the clinical evidence from these sources.
Methods Used to Formulate the Recommendations
Expert Consensus
Description of Methods Used to Formulate the Recommendations
When possible, clinical recommendations put forth in the clinical practice guideline have been assigned a letter grade (A-D) based on the level of scientific substantiation (see "Rating Scheme for the Strength of the Recommendations"). However, when task force members determined that clinical judgment regarding a recommendation outweighed study findings or a recommendation lacked supporting studies, they assigned the final grade based on their extensive clinical experience and expertise in diabetes management. An A grade is the strongest recommendation, and a D grade is the weakest recommendation. These recommendations include subjective components such as: (a) judgment regarding whether results from a particular study are conclusive; (b) the relative weighing of positive and negative conclusive study results; (c) assignment of evidence rating when certain study methodologies are controversial; (d) the impact of risk-benefit analysis; (e) the impact of cost-effectiveness; (f) assessment of geographical differences in practice standards and availability of certain technologies; (g) assessment of ethnic, racial, and genetic differences in pathophysiology; (h) incorporation of patient preferences; and (i) incorporation of physician preferences.
Rating Scheme for the Strength of the Recommendations
Recommendation Grades in Evidence-Based Medicinea
| Grade |
Description |
| A |
Homogeneous evidence from multiple well-designed randomized controlled trials with sufficient statistical power
Homogeneous evidence from multiple well-designed cohort controlled trials with sufficient statistical power
>1 conclusive level of evidence category 1 publications demonstrating benefit >> outweighs risk
|
| B |
Evidence from at least one large well-designed clinical trial, cohort or case-controlled analytic study, or meta-analysis
No conclusive level of evidence category 1 publication; >1 conclusive level of evidence category 2 publications demonstrating benefit >> risk
|
| C |
Evidence based on clinical experience, descriptive studies, or expert consensus opinion
No conclusive level 1 or 2 publication; >1 conclusive level of evidence category 3 publications demonstrating benefit >> risk
No conclusive risk at all and no conclusive benefit demonstrated by evidence
|
| D |
Not rated
No conclusive level of evidence category 1, 2, or 3 publication demonstrating benefit >> risk
Conclusive level of evidence category 1, 2, or 3 publication demonstrating risk >> benefit
|
aAdapted from the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists Protocol for the Standardized Production of Clinical Practice Guidelines.
Cost Analysis
Published cost analyses were reviewed.
Method of Guideline Validation
Peer Review
Description of Method of Guideline Validation
A separate panel composed of American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) members with expertise in diabetes reviewed the compiled report. Final recommendations included in this clinical practice guideline represent a consensus among the task force members and have been approved by reviewers, the AACE Publications and Executive Committees, and the AACE Board of Directors.
|
Major Recommendations
The levels of evidence (1–4) and the recommendation grades (A–D) are defined at the end of the "Major Recommendations" field.
Diabetes Management in the Hospital Setting
Hospital Preadmission Planning
- For elective hospital admissions, develop a glycemic management plan with the patient before admission and share the plan with colleagues who will be involved in the patient's care (grade C)
Data Collection and Record Keeping
- Measure the blood glucose concentration at hospital admission (grade A)
- Record "diabetes mellitus" on the medical chart, if the diagnosis of diabetes mellitus is known (grade C)
- Measure the HbA1c level at hospital admission if hyperglycemia is present, if a history of diabetes mellitus exists, or if a HbA1c value (within the past 3 months) is not available for review (grade B)
- Order point-of-care glucose monitoring in a pattern appropriate to the patient's diagnoses and carbohydrate exposure if hyperglycemia is present at hospital admission or if conditions present high risk for developing hyperglycemia (grade A)
Meal Plan
- For hyperglycemic patients who are eating, either: (a) order a consistent carbohydrate diet or (b) for knowledgeable nurses or insulin-requiring patients, permit the use of advanced carbohydrate counting and nurse-determination or patient self-determination of prandial insulin doses (grade C)
Target Blood Glucose Levels
- Preprandial, less than 110 mg/dL (grade C)
- Peak postprandial, less than 180 mg/dL (grade B)
- Critically ill patients, between 80 to 110 mg/dL (grade A)
Insulin Management Plan
- If appropriate for the patient, use intravenous insulin infusion (grade A)
- If hyperglycemia is reproducibly present and intravenous insulin infusion is not necessary, order scheduled subcutaneous insulin (grade B)
- For subcutaneous management, order amounts of insulin sufficient to cover basal and nutritional needs (grade B)
- Plan the patterns of glucose monitoring and delivery of insulin to match carbohydrate exposure (grade B)
- Revise the amounts of scheduled insulin daily or more frequently based on patient response (grade B)
- For patients receiving scheduled insulin, order an as needed correction dose of subcutaneous insulin with dosing that is: (a) proportionate to blood glucose elevation and insulin sensitivity of the patient and (b) appropriate to time of day; specify the times or mealtimes to which the order applies (grade B)
Hypoglycemia Prevention
- Modify insulin therapy preventively if a downward trend in blood glucose concentrations is observed or there are other conditions that predispose to hypoglycemia (grade A)
- For abrupt interruption of carbohydrate exposure within the time frame of action of previously administered nutritional insulin, treat the patient preemptively with intravenous concentrated dextrose before hypoglycemia occurs (grade B)
Comanagement
- Work collaboratively with diabetes care professionals from the disciplines of nursing, nutrition, pharmacy, quality assurance, hospital administration, and others (grade B)
Hospital Discharge Planning
- Offer inpatient education to patients regarding medication administration (including subcutaneous insulin injections if appropriate), glucose monitoring, nutrition, physical activity, and other lifestyle factors (grade B)
- At hospital discharge, offer appropriate intensification of the patient's preadmission management plan (grade B)
- At hospital discharge, provide an explanation of circumstances that should prompt the patient to call the clinician for guidance (grade B)
- Plan follow-up visits to be conducted after hospital discharge to discuss glycemic control and to continue patient education (grade B)
Definitions:
Levels of Substantiation in Evidence-Based Medicinea
| Level-of-Evidence Categoryb |
Study Design or Information Type |
Comments |
| 1 |
Randomized controlled trials
Multicenter trials
Large meta-analyses with quality ratings
|
Well-conducted, well-controlled trials at 1 or more medical centers
Data derived from a substantial number of trials with adequate power; substantial number of subjects and outcome data
Consistent pattern of findings in the population for which the recommendation is made – generalizable results
Compelling nonexperimental, clinically obvious evidence (e.g., use of insulin in diabetic ketoacidosis); "all or none" evidence
|
| 2 |
Randomized controlled trials
Prospective cohort studies
Meta-analyses of cohort studies
Case-control studies
|
Limited number of trials, small number of subjects
Well-conducted studies
Inconsistent findings or results not representative for the target population
|
| 3 |
Methodologically flawed randomized controlled trials
Nonrandomized controlled trials
Observational studies
Case series or case reports
|
Trials with 1 or more major or 3 or more minor methodologic flaws
Uncontrolled or poorly controlled trials
Retrospective or observational data
Conflicting data with weight of evidence unable to support a final recommendation
|
| 4 |
Expert consensus
Expert opinion based on experience
Theory-driven conclusions
Unproven claims
Experience-based information
|
Inadequate data for inclusion in level-of-evidence categories 1, 2, or 3; data necessitates an expert panel's synthesis of the literature and a consensus |
aAdapted from the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists Protocol for the Standardized Production of Clinical Practice Guidelines.
bLevel-of-evidence categories 1 through 3 indicate scientific substantiation or proof; level-of-evidence category 4 indicates unproven claims.
Recommendation Grades in Evidence-Based Medicinea
| Grade |
Description |
| A |
Homogeneous evidence from multiple well-designed randomized controlled trials with sufficient statistical power
Homogeneous evidence from multiple well-designed cohort controlled trials with sufficient statistical power
>1 conclusive level of evidence category 1 publications demonstrating benefit >> outweighs risk
|
| B |
Evidence from at least one large well-designed clinical trial, cohort or case-controlled analytic study, or meta-analysis
No conclusive level of evidence category 1 publication; >1 conclusive level of evidence category 2 publications demonstrating benefit >> risk
|
| C |
Evidence based on clinical experience, descriptive studies, or expert consensus opinion
No conclusive level 1 or 2 publication; >1 conclusive level of evidence category 3 publications demonstrating benefit >> risk
No conclusive risk at all and no conclusive benefit demonstrated by evidence
|
| D |
Not rated
No conclusive level of evidence category 1, 2, or 3 publication demonstrating benefit >> risk
Conclusive level of evidence category 1, 2, or 3 publication demonstrating risk >> benefit
|
aAdapted from the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists Protocol for the Standardized Production of Clinical Practice Guidelines.
|
Evidence Supporting the Recommendations
Type of Evidence Supporting the Recommendations
The type of supporting evidence is identified and graded for each recommendation (see "Major Recommendations").
|
Benefits/Harms of Implementing the Guideline Recommendations
Potential Benefits
Intensive treatment of diabetes mellitus and conditions known to be risk factors can significantly decrease the development and/or progression of chronic complications.
|
Qualifying Statements
- Criticism that purely evidence-based clinical practice guidelines do not reflect real life because subjective input is stifled or precluded is addressed to some extent by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) methodology for developing the guidelines. When the task force members judged that subjective factors influenced the grade of a recommendation to an extent that outweighed the available best evidence, this logic was explicitly described in the detailed discussion that follows each topic section's executive summary. Thus, the process of developing evidence-based recommendations and the incorporation of subjective components are transparent to the reader.
- These methods, nevertheless, have the following shortcomings: (a) reliance on some subjective measures, which compromises reproducibility; (b) dependence on the best available evidence, even if only one study is used to formulate a recommendation grade; and (c) dependence on task force primary authors to perform a comprehensive literature search. Multiple levels of review by both AACE-credentialed and non–AACE-credentialed experts from academia and clinical practice backgrounds serve to address these predicted shortcomings.
|
Implementation of the Guideline
Description of Implementation Strategy
An implementation strategy was not provided.
|
Institute of Medicine (IOM) National Healthcare Quality Report Categories
IOM Care Need
Living with Illness
Staying Healthy
IOM Domain
Effectiveness
Patient-centeredness
|
Identifying Information and Availability
Bibliographic Source(s)
| AACE Diabetes Mellitus Clinical Practice Guidelines Task Force. AACE diabetes mellitus guidelines. Diabetes management in the hospital setting. Endocr Pract 2007 May-Jun;13(Suppl 1):59-63. [67 references] |
Adaptation
Not applicable: The guideline was not adapted from another source.
Date Released
2000 Jan (revised 2007)
Guideline Developer(s)
American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists - Medical Specialty Society
American College of Endocrinology - Medical Specialty Society
Source(s) of Funding
American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE)
Guideline Committee
American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) Diabetes Mellitus Clinical Practice Guidelines Task Force
Composition of Group That Authored the Guideline
Task Force Members: Helena W. Rodbard, MD, FACP, MACE (Chairperson) Medical Director, Endocrine and Metabolic Consultants Past President, American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists Past President, American College of Endocrinology, Rockville, Maryland; Lawrence Blonde, MD, FACP, FACE, Director, Ochsner Diabetes Clinical Research Unit; Section on Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolic Diseases Associate Residency Program Director, Department of Internal Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana; Susan S. Braithwaite, MD, FACP, FACE, Clinical Professor of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Division of Endocrinology, Chapel Hill, NC; Elise M. Brett, MD, FACE, Assistant Clinical Professor of Medicine; Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Bone Disease; Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York; Rhoda H. Cobin, MD, MACE, Clinical Professor of Medicine; Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Bone Disease; Mount Sinai School of Medicine, Immediate Past President, American College of Endocrinology, Past President, American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, New York, New York; Yehuda Handelsman, MD, FACP, FACE, Medical Director, Metabolic Institute of America, Senior Scientific Consultant, Metabolic Endocrine Education Foundation, Tarzana, California; Richard Hellman, MD, FACP, FACE, Clinical Professor of Medicine, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine, President, American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, North Kansas City, Missouri; Paul S. Jellinger, MD, MACE, Professor of Medicine and Voluntary Faculty, University of Miami School of Medicine, Past President, American College of Endocrinology Past President, American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, Hollywood, Florida; Lois G. Jovanovic, MD, FACE, CEO & Chief Scientific Officer, Sansum Diabetes Research Institute, Adjunct Professor Biomolecular Science and Engineering, University of California-Santa Barbara, Clinical Professor of Medicine, University of Southern California, Keck School of Medicine, Santa Barbara, CA; Philip Levy, MD, FACE, Clinical Professor of Medicine, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Past President, American College of Endocrinology, Phoenix, Arizona; Jeffrey I. Mechanick, MD, FACP, FACE, FACN, Associate Clinical Professor of Medicine and Director of Metabolic Support; Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Bone Disease; Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York; Farhad Zangeneh, MD, FACP, FACE, Assistant Clinical Professor of Medicine, George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, Endocrine, Diabetes and Osteoporosis Clinic (EDOC), Sterling, Virginia
Medical Writer: Christopher G. Parkin, MS
Reviewers: Lewis E. Braverman, MD; Samuel Dagogo-Jack, MD, FACE; Vivian A. Fonseca, MD, FACE; Martin M. Grajower, MD, FACP, FACE; Virginia A. LiVolsi, MD; Fernando Ovalle, MD, FACE; Herbert I. Rettinger, MD, FACE; Talla P. Shankar, MD, FACE; Joseph J. Torre, MD, FACP, FACE; Dace L. Trence, MD, FACE
Financial Disclosures/Conflicts of Interest
Dr. Lawrence Blonde reports that he has received grant/research support from Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; AstraZeneca LP; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; Eli Lilly and Company; MannKind Corporation; Merck & Co., Inc.; Novo Nordisk Inc.; Novartis Corporation; Pfizer Inc.; and sanofi-aventis U.S. He has received speaker and consultant honoraria from Abbott Laboratories; Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Eli Lilly and Company; GlaxoSmithKline; LifeScan, Inc.; Merck & Co., Inc.; Novartis, Novo Nordisk Inc.; Pfizer Inc.; and sanofi-aventis U.S. He has received consultant honoraria from Kos Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and U.S. Surgical. Dr. Blonde has also disclosed that his spouse is a stock shareholder of Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Pfizer Inc., in an account that is not part of their community property.
Dr. Susan S. Braithwaite reports that she does not have any financial relationships with any commercial interests.
Dr. Elise M. Brett reports that her spouse is an employee of Novo Nordisk Inc.
Dr. Rhoda H. Cobin reports that she has received speaker honoraria from GlaxoSmithKline; Pfizer Inc.; sanofi-aventis U.S.; and Novartis and consultant honoraria from Abbott Laboratories.
Dr. Yehuda Handelsman reports that he has received speaker honoraria from Abbott Laboratories; Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; AstraZeneca LP; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; GlaxoSmithKline; Merck & Co., Inc.; Novartis; and sanofi-aventis U.S. and consultant honoraria from Abbott Laboratories; Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.; Novartis; and sanofi-aventis U.S.
Dr. Richard Hellman reports that he has received speaker honoraria from Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. and Pfizer Inc. and research grants for his role as an independent contractor from Abbott Laboratories; Pfizer Inc.; and Medtronic, Inc.
Dr. Paul S. Jellinger reports that he has received speaker honoraria from Eli Lilly and Company; Merck & Co., Inc.; Novartis; Novo Nordisk Inc.; and Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.
Dr. Lois G. Jovanovic reports that she has received research grants for her role as investigator from Eli Lilly and Company; DexCom Inc.; LifeScan, Inc.; Novo Nordisk Inc.; Pfizer Inc.; Roche Pharmaceuticals; sanofi-aventis U.S.; and Sensys Medical, Inc.
Dr. Philip Levy reports that he has received speaker honoraria from Abbott Laboratories; Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; GlaxoSmithKline; Eli Lilly and Company; Merck & Co., Inc.; Novo Nordisk Inc.; Novartis; Pfizer Inc.; and sanofi-aventis U.S. and research grants from Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; MannKind Corporation; Novo Nordisk Inc.; Pfizer Inc.; and sanofi-aventis U.S.
Dr. Jeffrey I. Mechanick reports that he does not have any financial relationships with any commercial interests.
Dr. Helena W. Rodbard reports that she has received consultant honoraria from Ortho-McNeil, Inc.; Pfizer Inc.; sanofi-aventis U.S.; and Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.; speaker honoraria from Abbott; GlaxoSmithKline; Merck & Co., Inc.; Novo Nordisk; Pfizer Inc.; and sanofi-aventis U.S. and research support from Biodel, Inc. and sanofi-aventis U. S.
Dr. Farhad Zangeneh reports that he has received speaker honoraria from Eli Lilly and Company; GlaxoSmithKline; Novartis; Novo Nordisk Inc.; Pfizer Inc.; Roche Pharmaceuticals; sanofi-aventis U.S.; and Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.
Guideline Status
This is the current release of the guideline.
This guideline updates a previously published version: American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, American College of Endocrinology. Medical guidelines for the management of diabetes mellitus: the AACE system of intensive diabetes self-management--2002 update. Endocr Pract 2002 Jan-Feb;8(Suppl 1):40-82.
Availability of Companion Documents
The following is available:
- American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists protocol for standardized production of clinical practice guidelines. Endocrine Pract 2004 Jul-Aug; 10(4):353-61.
Electronic copies: Available in Portable Document Format (PDF) from the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) Web site .
Print copies: Available from the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE), 1000 Riverside Avenue, Suite 205, Jacksonville, FL 32204.
NGC Status
This NGC summary was completed by ECRI on March 1, 2000. The summary was verified by the guideline developer as of March 8, 2000. This summary was updated on April 16, 2002. The information was verified by the guideline developer on November 11, 2002. This summary was updated by ECRI Institute on September 27, 2007. The updated information was verified by the guideline developer on November 12, 2007.
Copyright Statement
All rights reserved. No part of these materials may be reproduced or retransmitted in any manner without the prior written permission of American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE)/American College of Endocrinology (ACE).
|
NGC Disclaimer
The National Guideline Clearinghouseâ„¢ (NGC) does not develop, produce, approve, or endorse the guidelines represented on this site. Read full disclaimer...The National Guideline Clearinghouseâ„¢ (NGC) does not develop, produce, approve, or endorse the guidelines represented on this site.
All guidelines summarized by NGC and hosted on our site are produced under the auspices of medical specialty societies, relevant professional associations, public or private organizations, other government agencies, health care organizations or plans, and similar entities.
Guidelines represented on the NGC Web site are submitted by guideline developers, and are screened solely to determine that they meet the NGC Inclusion Criteria which may be found at http://www.guideline.gov/about/inclusion-criteria.aspx.
NGC, AHRQ, and its contractor ECRI Institute make no warranties concerning the content or clinical efficacy or effectiveness of the clinical practice guidelines and related materials represented on this site. Moreover, the views and opinions of developers or authors of guidelines represented on this site do not necessarily state or reflect those of NGC, AHRQ, or its contractor ECRI Institute, and inclusion or hosting of guidelines in NGC may not be used for advertising or commercial endorsement purposes.
Readers with questions regarding guideline content are directed to contact the guideline developer. Hide...
|