Trial reportScandinavian journal of primary health care2008
General effect on high-risk persons when general practitioners are trained in intensive treatment of type 2 diabetes.
Trial report in Scandinavian journal of primary health care, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Article
- The effect of screening on the prevalence of diagnosed type 2 diabetes in primary care.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWithin the frame of a randomized clinical trial to examine whether training of general practitioners (the intervention group) in intensive lifestyle modification and pharmacological treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes has a spillover effect on individuals with impaired fasting glycaemia (IFG) or impaired glucose tolerance (IGT).
designA high-risk screening study for type 2 diabetes with an intervention programme, where general practices were randomized to provide standard treatment versus intensive lifestyle modification and pharmacological treatment to newly diagnosed diabetic patients.
settingGeneral practices in Denmark. SUBJECTS: Of 1821 individuals identified with IFG or IGT, results from oral glucose tolerance tests after one and three years were available in 1510 individuals.
main outcome measuresProgression rates from IFG and IGT to diabetes and effect of intervention were estimated in a regression model using interval censoring.
resultsA total of 442 persons developed diabetes. There was no significant overall effect of intervention on progression rates. For risk factors, no difference in rate of change was found between randomization groups, but a difference was found between general practices within the same randomization groups.
conclusionGeneral practitioners identify a high number of incident diabetes cases in individuals with IFG or IGT found by high-risk screening. Intervention at the general practitioner's level in intensive treatment type 2 diabetes does not have a significant spillover effect reducing the risk of diabetes from pre-diabetic conditions. This could indicate that intervention strategies should be specifically targeted at individuals with IFG or IGT, either by training general practitioners or directly at the individual level.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.