ArticlePLOS global public health2024
Assessing compliance with national guidelines in diabetes care: A study leveraging data from south Africa's National Health Laboratory Service (NHLS).
Article in PLOS global public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Diabetes is a major global health issue. We evaluated compliance to laboratory-based management guidelines for diabetes (type 1 and 2), essential for effective treatment and reducing diabetes-related morbidity and mortality. Our study utilized South Africa's National Health Laboratory Services (NHLS) data, focusing on patients from birth to age 80 years who underwent initial diabetes laboratory testing between January 1, 2012-January 1, 2016. Patients were categorized into type 1 (<30 years) or type 2 (≥30-80 years) diabetes based on age at first diabetes test. National diabetes guidelines recommend blood glucose to be checked every three-six months post laboratory-diagnosis. We employed a sharp regression discontinuity design to estimate the effect of a laboratory-diagnosis of diabetes on the likelihood of having a follow-up laboratory test 24 months post-diagnosis. Among patients with type 2 diabetes, the probability of a diabetes follow-up laboratory test within 24 months was 52.4% for patients presenting above the diabetes diagnosis threshold vs 31.1% for those presenting below. Although the likelihood of repeat testing rose with higher HbA1c and glucose levels, at the diagnostic threshold there was no clinically meaningful difference (risk difference: -2.2%, 95% CI: -3.3%, -1.2%). These results were consistent among patients with type 1 diabetes, those living with and without HIV, and healthcare setting. In a national laboratory cohort, diabetes laboratory-diagnosis did not lead to increased monitoring as recommended in national guidelines. Strategies to improve patient education, healthcare provider communication, and healthcare system support are essential to enhance guideline compliance and overall diabetes management.
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.