Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34887271›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2021

Effect of educational interventions on knowledge of the disease and glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Wondimeneh Shibabaw Shiferaw, Tadesse Yirga Akalu, Melaku Desta, Ayelign Mengesha Kassie, Pammla Margaret Petrucka, Yared Asmare Aynalem

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. A Review of Patient's Knowledge and Practice of Diabetic Foot Self-Care.The Malaysian journal of medical sciences : MJMS · 2024
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Wondimeneh Shibabaw ShiferawNursing, Debre Berhan University, Debre Berhan, Ethiopia wshibabaw2015@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0003-4348-591X
Tadesse Yirga AkaluNursing, Debre Markos University, Debre Markos, Amhara, Ethiopia.ORCID 0000-0002-5475-6183
Melaku DestaMidwifery, Debre Markos University, Debre Markos, Amhara, Ethiopia.
Ayelign Mengesha KassieNursing, Woldia University, Woldia, Amhara, Ethiopia.ORCID 0000-0003-1505-9390
Pammla Margaret PetruckaNursing, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.
Yared Asmare AynalemPediatric and Child Health, Debre Berhan University, Debre Berhan, Amhara, Ethiopia.ORCID 0000-0002-3005-2296

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGlobally, type 2 diabetes has continued to increase, now accounting for over 90% of all diabetes cases. Though the magnitude of uncontrolled glycaemic levels in patients with type 2 diabetes is steadily rising, evidence showed that effectively controlled glycaemic levels can prevent complications and improve the quality of life of these patients. As little is known about the effect of educational interventions on this population, this systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the effectiveness of educational interventions versus standard care on glycaemic control and disease knowledge among patients with type 2 diabetes.

methodsPubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, Scopus, African Journals Online and Wiley Online Library were searched. Two authors independently assessed within-trial risk of bias in each included study using revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials. A random-effects model was employed to estimate combined effect sizes. Subgroup analyses were employed to investigate possible sources of heterogeneity between studies. The overall certainty of the evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.

resultsA total of 19 trials with 2708 study participants were included in the review. Primary outcomes (glycaemic control) were reported in 18 trials. The pooled estimated impact of educational intervention on glycaemic levels using the random-effects model was -0.83 (95% CI: -1.17 to -0.49, p<0.001). Subgroup analyses revealed greater A1c reductions in those studies with intervention duration of up to 3 months and with empirical intervention designs. Educational interventions led to significant increases in participants' knowledge of type 2 diabetes (standardised mean difference: 1.16; 95% CI: 0.71 to 1.60; I

conclusionIn the current review overall, educational interventions can potentially lead to improved glycaemic control levels in patients with type 2 diabetes despite heterogeneity across the studies. Besides, the findings showed that educational interventions could increase disease knowledge among patients with type 2 diabetes. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020205838.

Indexed as

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2Glycemic ControlHumansQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as Topicdiabetes & endocrinologyeducation & training (see medical education & training)general diabetes

Identifiers

PMID34887271
PMCPMC8663073

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.