Trial reportDiabetes care2013
Feasibility and effectiveness in clinical practice of a multifactorial intervention for the reduction of cardiovascular risk in patients with type 2 diabetes: the 2-year interim analysis of the MIND.IT study: a cluster randomized trial.
Trial report in Diabetes care, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Quality improvement strategies for diabetes care: Effects on outcomes for adults living with diabetes.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- A study about the relevance of adding acetylsalicylic acid in primary prevention in subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus: effects on some new emerging biomarkers of cardiovascular risk.Cardiovascular diabetology · 2015Trial
- Multiple risk factor intervention reduces carotid atherosclerosis in patients with type 2 diabetes.Cardiovascular diabetology · 2014Trial
- The Importance and Role of Multiple Risk Factor Control in Type 2 Diabetes.Current cardiology reports · 2019Review
- INTEGRA study protocol: primary care intervention in type 2 diabetes patients with poor glycaemic control.BMC family practice · 2019Article
- A Narrative Review of Diabetes Intervention Studies to Explore Diabetes Care Opportunities for Pharmacists.Journal of diabetes research · 2016Review
- Importance of cardiovascular disease risk management in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.Diabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity : targets and therapy · 2014Review
- Diagnosed diabetes and optimal disease control of prisoners in Catalonia.Revista espanola de sanidad penitenciariaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of an intensive, multifactorial cardiovascular risk reduction intervention in a clinic-based setting. RESEARCH DESIGN AND
methodsThe study was a pragmatic, cluster randomized trial, with the diabetes clinic as the unit of randomization. Clinics were randomly assigned to either continue their usual care (n = 5) or to apply an intensive intervention aimed at the optimal control of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors and hyperglycemia (n = 4). To account for clustering, mixed model regression techniques were used to compare differences in CVD risk factors and HbA1c. Analyses were performed both by intent to treat and as treated per protocol.
resultsNine clinics completed the study; 1,461 patients with type 2 diabetes and no previous cardiovascular events were enrolled. After 2 years, participants in the interventional group had significantly lower BMI, HbA1c, LDL cholesterol, and triglyceride levels and significantly higher HDL cholesterol level than did the usual care group. The proportion of patients reaching the treatment goals was systematically higher in the interventional clinics (35% vs. 24% for LDL cholesterol, P = 0.1299; 93% vs. 82% for HDL cholesterol, P = 0.0005; 80% vs. 64% for triglycerides, P = 0.0002; 39% vs. 22% for HbA1c, P = 0.0259; 13% vs. 5% for blood pressure, P = 0.1638). The analysis as treated per protocol confirmed these findings, showing larger and always significant differences between the study arms for all targets.
conclusionsA multifactorial intensive intervention in type 2 diabetes is feasible and effective in clinical practice and it is associated with significant and durable improvement in HbA1c and CVD risk profile.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.