Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26858958›Full record

Trial reportJournal of diabetes research2016

Effectiveness of a Peer Support Programme versus Usual Care in Disease Management of Diabetes Mellitus Type 2 regarding Improvement of Metabolic Control: A Cluster-Randomised Controlled Trial.

Tim Johansson, Sophie Keller, Henrike Winkler, Thomas Ostermann, Raimund Weitgasser, Andreas C Sönnichsen

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of diabetes research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Tim JohanssonInstitute of General Practice, Family Medicine, and Preventive Medicine, Paracelsus Medical University, 5020 Salzburg, Austria.
Sophie KellerInstitute of General Practice, Family Medicine, and Preventive Medicine, Paracelsus Medical University, 5020 Salzburg, Austria.
Henrike WinklerParis Lodron University, 5020 Salzburg, Austria.
Thomas OstermannCentre for Integrative Medicine, University of Witten/Herdecke, 58448 Witten, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2695-0701
Raimund WeitgasserDepartment of Internal Medicine, Wehrle-Diakonissen Hospital, 5026 Salzburg, Austria; Paracelsus Medical University, 5020 Salzburg, Austria.
Andreas C SönnichsenInstitute of General Practice and Family Medicine, University of Witten/Herdecke, 58448 Witten, Germany.
Paracelsus Medical University · ATWitten/Herdecke University · DEUniversity of Salzburg · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTesting the effectiveness of peer support additionally to a disease management programme (DMP) for type 2 diabetes patients.

methodsUnblinded cluster-randomised controlled trial (RCT) involving 49 general practices, province of Salzburg, Austria. All patients enrolled in the DMP were eligible, n = 337 participated (intervention: 148 in 19 clusters; control: 189 in 20 clusters). The peer support intervention ran over 24 months and consisted of peer supporter recruitment and training, and group meetings weekly for physical exercise and monthly for discussion of diabetes related topics.

resultsAt two-year follow-up, adjusted analysis revealed a nonsignificant difference in HbA1c change of 0.14% (21.97 mmol/mol) in favour of the intervention (95% CI -0.08 to 0.36%, p = 0.22). Baseline values were 7.02 ± 1.25% in the intervention and 7.08 ± 1.25 in the control group. None of the secondary outcome measures showed significant differences except for improved quality of life (EQ-5D-VAS) in controls (4.3 points on a scale of 100; 95% CI 0.08 to 8.53, p = 0.046) compared to the intervention group.

conclusionOur peer support intervention as an additional DMP component showed no significant effect on HbA1c and secondary outcome measures. Further RTCs with a longer follow-up are needed to reveal whether peer support will have clinically relevant effects.

trial registrationThis trial has been registered with Current Controlled Trials Ltd. (ISRCTN10291077).

Indexed as

AgedDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Disease ManagementFemaleGlycated HemoglobinHumansMaleMiddle AgedQuality of LifeGlycated Hemoglobinhemoglobin A1c protein, human

Identifiers

PMID26858958
PMCPMC4698561
OpenAlexW1909063175

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.