Evidence mapPaperPMID 24567202Full record

Trial reportJournal of general internal medicine2014

Translating the hemoglobin A1C with more easily understood feedback: a randomized controlled trial.

Anjali Gopalan, Emin Tahirovic, Haley Moss, Andrea B Troxel, Jingsan Zhu, George Loewenstein, Kevin G Volpp

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of general internal medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01143870 (Examining Ways to Increase Patient Understanding of Diabetes Control and Disease Severity Through Reinterpretation of Hemoglobin A1C Values With the Goal of Improved Diabetes Control), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT01143870 nacompletednot on this map

Examining Ways to Increase Patient Understanding of Diabetes Control and Disease Severity Through Reinterpretation of Hemoglobin A1C Values With the Goal of Improved Diabetes Control

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of PennsylvaniaRan2010 to 2011Enrolled177ConditionsDiabetes MellitusArms"Diabetes Report Card"
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Anjali GopalanThe Philadelphia VA Medical Center, 3900 Woodland Avenue, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA, agopalan@upenn.edu.
Emin Tahirovic
Haley Moss
Andrea B Troxel
Jingsan Zhu
George Loewenstein
Kevin G Volpp

Funding

The Penn Roybal Center on Behavioral Economics and Health: Solving for Scale and Impact with Design Thinking, Digital Platforms, and Dynamic AdaptationP30AG034546 · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · 2025 to 2025
$791k
NIA NIH HHS P30 AG034546NIA NIH HHS P30AG034546
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPrevious work has indicated that for patients with diabetes, there is value in understanding glycemic control. Despite these findings, patient understanding of the hemoglobin A1C value (A1C) is notably poor. In this study, we test the effect of two alternative communication formats of the A1C on improving glycemic control among patients with poorly controlled diabetes.

methods177 patients with poorly controlled diabetes were randomized to one of three study arms that varied in the information they received: (1) a "diabetes report card" containing individualized information about glycemic control for each participant with letter grades ranging from A to F; (2) a "report card" containing a face whose emotion reflected current glycemic control; or (3) a "report card" with glycemic control expressed with the A1C value (standard arm). The primary study outcome was change in A1C at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included changes in participant perceptions of their glycemic control.

resultsThe average A1C for enrolled participants was 9.9 % (S.D. 1.7) and did not differ significantly among study arms. We noted no significant differences in change in A1C at 6 months between the standard and experimental arms. Using multiple imputation to account for missing A1C values, the changes in A1C for the letter grade, face, and standard arms were -0.55 % (-1.15, 0.05), -0.89 % (-1.49, -0.29), and -0.74 % (-1.51, 0.029), respectively (p = 0.67 for control vs. grade, p = 0.76 for control vs. face). DISCUSSION: Feedback to patients with poorly controlled diabetes in the form of letter grades and faces did not differentially impact glycemic control at 6 months or participant perceptions of current control. These efforts to improve communication and patient understanding of disease management targets need further refinement to significantly impact diabetes outcomes. CLINICAL TRIAL ID: NCT01143870.

Indexed as

FeedbackPatient Education as TopicBlood GlucoseDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2FemaleFollow-Up StudiesGlycated HemoglobinHealth LiteracyHumansHypoglycemic AgentsMaleMiddle AgedPrognosisTime FactorsBlood GlucoseGlycated HemoglobinHypoglycemic Agents

Identifiers

PMID24567202
PMCPMC4061357

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.