Trial reportCancer medicine2023
A nurse-led intervention in patients with newly diagnosed cancer and Type 2 diabetes: A pilot randomized controlled trial feasibility study.
Trial report in Cancer medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundUndiagnosed Type 2 diabetes (T2D) has been associated with advanced stage cancer at diagnosis, higher mortality, and lower long-term all-cause survival. This was a RCT pilot study to examine the feasibility of a nurse-led T2D intervention for adults with newly diagnosed cancer (≤3 months), and T2D, undiagnosed or untreated with medication, conducted at an outpatient oncology clinic affiliated with a large academic institution.
methodsParticipants needed to meet the eligibility criteria including a HbA1c level between 6.5% and 9.9%. Randomization was 1:1 to a 3-month intervention that consisted of nursing-led diabetes education and immediate initiation of metformin versus referral to primary care for usual care (control).
resultsThree hundred and seventy nine patients were screened using EHR, 55 agreed to participate, and 3 had eligible HbA1c levels and were randomized in the study. Primary reasons for study exclusion included life expectancy ≤2 years (16.9%), current use or inability to tolerate metformin (14.8%), and abnormal labs that contraindicated metformin use (13.9%).
conclusionThis study was not feasible due to recruitment inefficiencies, but acceptable to all who qualified.
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.