ArticleDiabetology international2025
Efficacy of carbohydrate counting in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Diabetology international, 2025. 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.
- Why hyperinsulinemia is detrimental to weight loss: insights from type 1 diabetes.BMC medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Although carbohydrate counting (CC) being the recommended dietary strategy for achieving glycemic control in people with diabetes, there is limited evidence. Our aim is to systematically assess the efficacy of CC in people with diabetes. Methods: We searched PubMed up to October 2024 and assessed randomized controlled trials of interventions longer than 12 weeks in people with diabetes. Change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels was the primary outcome. The results of clinically and statistically homogenous studies were pooled and meta-analyzed using the random-effects model to provide estimates of the efficacy of CC. Results: We identified 16 studies (633 children and 640 adults) in type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and 6 studies (966 adults) in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). There was significant improvement in HbA1c levels with CC versus the other diets in T1DM (- 0.21%, 95% CI - 0.41 to - 0.01; Conclusions: For glycemic control in people with T1DM, CC was an effective option. Although BCC was not effective for glycemic control in adults with T2DM, further high-quality and long-term studies are needed to confirm these issues.
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.