SynthesisScientific reports2025
Systematic review of healthcare-led and lay-led interventions for type 2 diabetes in community settings.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Models led by trained non-professionals or incorporating peer support may serve as promising alternative approaches to address shortages of healthcare personnel and substantial economic burdens. However, no comprehensive meta-analysis has yet evaluated whether models led by non-healthcare professionals and supported by peers can achieve effectiveness comparable to those led by healthcare professionals and without peer support in improving metabolic outcomes. This meta-analysis aims to address this existing knowledge gap. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were systematically searched in eight Chinese and English databases from their inception to February 1, 2025. Meta-analyses, subgroup analyses, and sensitivity analyses were performed using RevMan 5.4 and Stata 18.0 software. The quality of evidence for each outcome indicator was evaluated using the online tool GRADEpro GDT. A total of 30 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The findings demonstrated that community-based interventions had a significant effect on improving HbA
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.