Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33461624›Full record

ArticleTrials2021

Diabetes management intervention studies: lessons learned from two studies.

Bettina Petersen, Iris Vesper, Bernhild Pachwald, Nicole Dagenbach, Sina Buck, Delia Waldenmaier, Lutz Heinemann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 2 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.

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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. The Impact of Education, COVID-19 and Risk Factors on the Quality of Life in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    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

7 authors.

Bettina PetersenRoche Diabetes Care GmbH, Mannheim, Germany.
Iris VesperRoche Diabetes Care GmbH, Mannheim, Germany.
Bernhild PachwaldRoche Diabetes Care GmbH, Mannheim, Germany.
Nicole DagenbachRoche Diabetes Care GmbH, Mannheim, Germany.
Sina BuckInstitut für Diabetes-Technologie, Forschungs- und Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH an der Universität Ulm, Lise-Meitner-Strasse 8/2, 89081, Ulm, Germany. sina.buck@idt-ulm.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8428-1038
Delia WaldenmaierInstitut für Diabetes-Technologie, Forschungs- und Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH an der Universität Ulm, Lise-Meitner-Strasse 8/2, 89081, Ulm, Germany.
Lutz HeinemannScience Consulting in Diabetes GmbH, Neuss, Germany.

Funding

Roche Diabetes Care n.a.
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSeveral clinical studies investigated improvements of patient outcomes due to diabetes management interventions. However, chronic disease management is intricate with complex multifactorial behavior patterns. Such studies thus have to be well designed in order to allocate all observed effects to the defined intervention and to exclude effects of other confounders as well as possible. This article aims to provide challenges in interpreting diabetes management intervention studies and suggests approaches for optimizing study implementation and for avoiding pitfalls based on current experiences. MAIN BODY: Lessons from the STeP and ProValue studies demonstrated the difficulty in medical device studies that rely on behavioral changes in intervention group patients. To successfully engage patients, priority should be given to health care professionals being engaged, operational support in technical issues being available, and adherence being assessed in detail. Another difficulty is to avoid contamination of the control group with the intervention; therefore, strict allocation concealment should be maintained. However, randomization and blinding are not always possible. A limited effect size due to improvements regarding clinical endpoints in the control group is often caused by the Hawthorne effect. Improvements in the control group can also be caused with increased attention paid to the subjects. In order to reduce improvements in the control group, it is essential to identify the specific reasons and adjust study procedures accordingly. A pilot phase is indispensable for this. Another option is to include a third study arm to control for enhanced standard of care and study effects. Furthermore, retrospective data collection could be a feasible option. Adaptive study designs might reduce the necessity of a separate pilot study and combine the exploratory and confirmatory stages of an investigation in one single study.

conclusionThere are several aspects to consider in medical device studies when using interventions that rely on changes in behavior to achieve an effective implementation and significant study results. Improvements in the control group may reduce effect sizes and limit statistical significance; therefore, alternatives to the traditional randomized controlled trials may be considered.

Indexed as

Diabetes MellitusHealth PersonnelChronic DiseaseHumansPilot ProjectsRetrospective StudiesAdaptive study designBehavior-basedDiabetesMedical device studiesProValueRandomized controlled trialsSTePStudy effectStudy performance

Identifiers

PMID33461624
PMCPMC7812736

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.