Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12804458›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2003

Specialist nurses in diabetes mellitus.

E Loveman, P Royle, N Waugh

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

41 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 142 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Nurse versus physician-led care for the management of asthma.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Individual patient education for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2009
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

E LovemanWessex Institute for Health Research and Development, University of Southampton, Bolderwood (mail point 728), Southampton, Hampshire, UK, SO16 7PX. Emma.Loveman@soton.ac.uk
P Royle
N Waugh
University of Aberdeen · GBUniversity of Southampton · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe patient with diabetes has many different learning needs relating to diet, monitoring, and treatments. In many health care systems specialist nurses provide much of these needs, usually aiming to empower patients to self-manage their diabetes. The present review aims to assess the effects of the involvement of specialist nurse care on outcomes for people with diabetes, compared to usual care in hospital clinics or primary care with no input from specialist nurses.

objectivesTo assess the effects of diabetes specialist nurses / nurse case manager in diabetes on the metabolic control of patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus. SEARCH STRATEGY: We carried out a comprehensive search of databases including the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and EMBASE to identify trials. Bibliographies of relevant papers were searched, and hand searching of relevant publications was undertaken to identify additional trials (Date of last search November 2002). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials of the effects of a specialist nurse practitioner on short and long term diabetic outcomes were included in the review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three investigators performed data extraction and quality scoring independently; any discrepancies were resolved by consensus. MAIN

resultsSix trials including 1382 participants followed for six to 12 months were included. Two trials were in adolescents. Due to substantial heterogeneity between trials a meta-analysis was not performed. Glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) in the intervention groups was not found to be significantly different from the control groups over a 12 month follow up period. One study demonstrated a significant reduction in HbA1c in the presence of the diabetes specialist nurse/nurse case manager at 6 months. Significant differences in episodes of hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia between intervention and control groups were found in one trial. Where reported, emergency admissions and quality of life were not found to be significantly different between groups. No information was found regarding BMI, mortality, long term diabetic complications, adverse effects, or costs. REVIEWER'S

conclusionsThe presence of a diabetes specialist nurse / nurse case manager may improve patients' diabetic control over short time periods, but from currently available trials the effects over longer periods of time are not evident. There were no significant differences overall in hypoglycaemic episodes, hyperglycaemic incidents, or hospital admissions. Quality of life was not shown to be affected by input from a diabetes specialist nurse/nurse case manager.

Indexed as

Specialties, NursingCase ManagementDiabetes MellitusHumansQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID12804458
PMCPMC8407322
OpenAlexW1887771992

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.