Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17761995›Full record

Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2007

Psychological impact of screening for type 2 diabetes: controlled trial and comparative study embedded in the ADDITION (Cambridge) randomised controlled trial.

Helen C Eborall, Simon J Griffin, A Toby Prevost, Ann-Louise Kinmonth, David P French, Stephen Sutton

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

57 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Screening for type 2 diabetes mellitus.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Recommendations on screening for type 2 diabetes in adults.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2012
    Guideline
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Guideline
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Helen C EborallGeneral Practice and Primary Care Research Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0SR. hce21@medschl.cam.ac.uk
Simon J Griffin
A Toby Prevost
Ann-Louise Kinmonth
David P French
Stephen Sutton

Funding

Medical Research Council G0001164Medical Research Council MC_U106179474Wellcome Trust 071200/Z/03/ZWellcome Trust G0000753
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo quantify the psychological impact of primary care based stepwise screening for type 2 diabetes.

designControlled trial and comparative study embedded in a randomised controlled trial.

setting15 practices (10 screening, five control) in the ADDITION (Cambridge) trial in the east of England.

participants7380 adults (aged 40-69) in the top fourth for risk of having undiagnosed type 2 diabetes (6416 invited for screening, 964 controls).

interventionsInvited for screening for type 2 diabetes or not invited (controls), incorporating a comparative study of subgroups of screening attenders. Attenders completed questionnaires after a random blood glucose test and at 3-6 months and 12-15 months later. Controls were sent questionnaires at corresponding time points. Non-attenders were sent questionnaires at 3-6 months and 12-15 months.

main outcome measuresState anxiety (Spielberger state anxiety inventory), anxiety and depression (hospital anxiety and depression scale), worry about diabetes, and self rated health.

resultsNo significant differences were found between the screening and control participants at any time-for example, difference in means (95% confidence intervals) for state anxiety after the initial blood glucose test was -0.53, -2.60 to 1.54, at 3-6 months was 1.51 (-0.17 to 3.20), and at 12-15 months was 0.57, -1.11 to 2.24. After the initial test, compared with participants who screened negative, those who screened positive reported significantly poorer general health (difference in means -0.19, -0.25 to -0.13), higher state anxiety (0.93, -0.02 to 1.88), higher depression (0.32, 0.08 to 0.56), and higher worry about diabetes (0.25, 0.09 to 0.41), although effect sizes were small. Small but significant trends were found for self rated health across the screening subgroups at 3-6 months (P=0.047) and for worry about diabetes across the screen negative groups at 3-6 months and 12-15 months (P=0.001).

conclusionsScreening for type 2 diabetes has limited psychological impact on patients. Implementing a national screening programme based on the stepwise screening procedure used in the ADDITION (Cambridge) trial is unlikely to have significant consequences for patients' psychological health.

trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN99175498 [controlled-trials.com].

Indexed as

AdultAgedAnxiety DisordersBlood GlucoseDepressive DisorderDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2HumansMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPatient Acceptance of Health CareBlood Glucose

Identifiers

PMID17761995
PMCPMC1971192

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.