Introduction

an official point of view or belief of the ADA. Position statements are issued on scientific or medical issues related to diabetes. They are published in ADA journals and other scientific/medical publications as appropriate. Position statements must be reviewed and approved by the Professional Practice Committee and, subsequently, by the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors. ADA position statements are typically based on an accompanying technical review and are peer reviewed on an annual basis.

a balanced review and analysis of the literature on a scientific or medical topic related to diabetes mellitus. The technical review provides a scientific rationale for a position statement and undergoes peer review before submission to the Professional Practice Committee for approval. In some cases, in place of a technical review, original research publications, conference proceedings, or other comprehensive review articles are used as a basis for a position statement. A list of technical reviews is included on page S145 of this supplement.

a comprehensive examination by a panel of experts (i.e., consensus panel) of a scientific or medical issue related to diabetes mellitus. A consensus statement is developed immediately following a consensus conference at which presentations are made on the issue under review. The statement represents the panel’s collective analysis, evaluation, and opinion based in part on the conference proceedings. The need for a consensus conference arises when clinicians or scientists desire guidance on a subject for which there is a relative deficiency of “evidence” that might otherwise allow a more definite statement to be made. Once written by the panel, a consensus statement is not subject to subsequent review or approval and does not represent official Association opinion. A listing of recent consensus statements is on page S148 of this supplement.

The Association’s Professional Practice Committee is responsible for developing official position statements. Appointment to the Professional Practice Committee is based on excellence in clinical practice and research. The committee comprises physicians, diabetes educators, and registered dietitians who have expertise in a range of areas, including adult and pediatric endocrinology, epidemiology and public health, lipid research, hypertension, and preconception and pregnancy care. The committee regularly reviews each previously approved statement and makes necessary revisions. Both new and revised position statements are also reviewed by outside experts, after which they are approved by the Executive Committee.

Since the ADA first began publishing practice guidelines, considerable evolution has occurred in the evaluation of scientific evidence and in the development of evidence-based guidelines. Accordingly, we have developed a classification system to grade the quality of scientific evidence supporting ADA recommendations. The system outlined in Table 1 will be used for all new and revised ADA position statements.

Recommendations have been assigned ratings of A, B, or C, depending on the quality of evidence (Table 1). Expert opinion (E) is a separate category for recommendations in which there is as yet no evidence from clinical trials, in which clinical trials may be impractical, or in which there is conflicting evidence. Recommendations with an “A” rating are based on large well-designed clinical trials or well-done meta-analyses. Generally, these recommendations have the best chance of improving outcomes when applied to the population to which they are appropriate. Recommendations with lower levels of evidence may be equally important but are not as well supported. This supplement contains seven statements that have used this system. The level of evidence supporting a given recommendation is noted either as a heading for a group of recommendations or after a given recommendation in parentheses.

Of course, evidence is only one component of clinical decision-making. Clinicians care for patients, not populations; guidelines must always be interpreted with the needs of the individual patient in mind. Individual circumstances, such as comorbid and coexisting diseases, age, education, disability, and above all, patients’ values and preferences, must also be considered and may lead to different treatment targets and strategies. Also, conventional evidence hierarchies, such as the one adapted by the ADA, may miss some nuances that are important in diabetes care. For example, while there is excellent evidence from clinical trials supporting the importance of achieving glycemic control, the optimal way to achieve this result is less clear. It is difficult to assess each component of such a complex intervention.

The ADA will continue to improve and update the Clinical Practice Recommendations to ensure that clinicians, health plans, and policy makers can continue to rely on them as the most authoritative and current guidelines for diabetes care.

We hope you find this compilation useful. Our Clinical Practice Recommendations are also available on the Association’s website at www.diabetes.org/diabetescare.