ArticlePloS one2025
Assessment of the psychometric properties of self-management measurement instruments for individuals with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review protocol.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
CONTEXT AND
objectivesThe type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) negatively impacts patients' quality of life, affecting their physical and mental functioning as well as social relationships. Self-management is essential for T2DM control, as it involves self-care behaviors and self-efficacy, leading to better health outcomes such as better glycemic control. There are a variety of instruments in the literature capable of measuring self-management in T2DM population. Therefore, the aim of this review is to identify the available T2DM self-management instruments and evaluate their measurement properties, as well as to analyze their contents based on the international classification of functioning, disability and health.
methodsThe systematic review will follow the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines, and its protocol has been registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (registration CRD42024605840). Searches will be conducted in MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, PsycINFO, Embase, and CINAHL. Additionally, a manual search will be conducted in the databases: PROQOLID, PROMIS, and Medical Outcome Trust. Studies on the development and validation of patient-reported outcome measures assessing self-management in individuals with T2DM will be included, with no restrictions on language or publication date. Data extraction will use tools recommended by COSMIN. The modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach will determine the quality of the evidence. Instruments will be categorized according to COSMIN recommendations. All steps will be conducted by two independent reviewers, with a third reviewer consulted in case of discrepancies. Additionally, the content of the instruments will be analyzed and linked to the ICF. DISCUSSION: This systematic review may guide researchers and healthcare professionals to choose the most suitable instrument for their target population. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required, as this study is a review of published data. The results will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals.
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.