Trial reportNutrition & diabetes2024
Effects of basic carbohydrate counting versus standard dietary care for glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes (The BCC Study): a randomised, controlled trial.
Trial report in Nutrition & diabetes, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Carbohydrate Knowledge in People with Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes in the NutriNet-Santé Cohort Study.Nutrients · 2026Article
- Efficacy of carbohydrate counting in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Diabetology international · 2025Article
- Ranking of treatments in network meta-analysis: incorporating minimally important differences.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundClinical guidelines recommend basic carbohydrate counting (BCC), or similar methods to improve carbohydrate estimation skills and to strive for higher consistency in carbohydrate intake potentially improving glycaemic control. However, evidence for this approach in type 2 diabetes (T2D) is limited.
objectiveTo examine the efficacy of a structured education program in BCC as add-on to standard dietary care on glycaemic control in individuals with T2D.
methodsThe BCC Study was a randomized, controlled, open-label, parallel-group trial. Individuals with T2D aged 18-75 years with glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) 53-97 mmol/mol (7.0-11.0%) were randomly assigned (1:1) to BCC or standard dietary care. The primary outcomes were differences in changes in HbA1c or glycaemic variability (calculated as mean amplitude of glycaemic excursions [MAGE]) between groups after six months of intervention.
resultsBetween September 2018 and July 2021, 48 participants were randomly assigned, 23 to BCC and 25 to standard dietary care. Seven participants did not receive the allocated intervention. From a baseline-adjusted mean of 65 mmol/mol (95% CI 62-68 [8.1%, 7.8-8.4]), HbA1c changed by -5 mmol/mol (-8 to -1 [-0.5%, -0.7 to -0.1]) in BCC and -3 mmol/mol (-7 to 1 [-0.3%, -0.6 to 0.1]) in standard care with an estimated treatment effect of -2 mmol/mol (-7 to 4 [-0.2%, -0.6 to 0.4]); p = 0.554. From a baseline-adjusted mean of 4.2 mmol/l (3.7 to 4.8), MAGE changed by -16% (-33 to 5) in BCC and by -3% (-21 to 20) in standard care with an estimated treatment effect of -14% (-36 to 16); p = 0.319. Only median carbohydrate estimation error in favour of BCC (estimated treatment difference -55% (-70 to -32); p < 0.001) remained significant after multiple testing adjustment.
conclusionsNo glycaemic effects were found but incorporating BCC as a supplementary component to standard dietary care led to improved skills in estimating carbohydrate intake among individuals with T2D.
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.