Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19917136›Full record

ReviewBMC family practice2009

Effectiveness of IT-based diabetes management interventions: a review of the literature.

Beth M Costa, Kristine J Fitzgerald, Kay M Jones, Trisha Dunning Am

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative StudyReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC family practice, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02021591 (Randomized Clinical Trial of Health Information Technology for Problem Solving in Diabetes Management), which is not on this map. Cited by 37 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 10 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.

NCT02021591 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2013, after this paper: background citation

Randomized Clinical Trial of Health Information Technology for Problem Solving in Diabetes Management

TypeinterventionalSponsorColumbia UniversityRan2013 to 2017Enrolled248ConditionsDiabetes MellitusArmsMobile Diabetes Detective (MoDD)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

4 authors.

Beth M CostaSchool of Nursing, Faculty of Health, Medicine, Nursing and Behavioural Sciences, Deakin University, Waterfront Campus, Geelong, 3220 Victoria, Australia. beth.costa@deakin.edu.au
Kristine J Fitzgerald
Kay M Jones
Trisha Dunning Am

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInformation technology (IT) is increasingly being used in general practice to manage health care including type 2 diabetes. However, there is conflicting evidence about whether IT improves diabetes outcomes. This review of the literature about IT-based diabetes management interventions explores whether methodological issues such as sample characteristics, outcome measures, and mechanisms causing change in the outcome measures could explain some of the inconsistent findings evident in IT-based diabetes management studies.

methodsDatabases were searched using terms related to IT and diabetes management. Articles eligible for review evaluated an IT-based diabetes management intervention in general practice and were published between 1999 and 2009 inclusive in English. Studies that did not include outcome measures were excluded.

resultsFour hundred and twenty-five articles were identified, sixteen met the inclusion criteria: eleven GP focussed and five patient focused interventions were evaluated. Nine were RCTs, five non-randomised control trials, and two single-sample before and after designs. Important sample characteristics such as diabetes type, familiarity with IT, and baseline diabetes knowledge were not addressed in any of the studies reviewed. All studies used HbA1c as a primary outcome measure, and nine reported a significant improvement in mean HbA1c over the study period; only two studies reported the HbA1c assay method. Five studies measured diabetes medications and two measured psychological outcomes. Patient lifestyle variables were not included in any of the studies reviewed. IT was the intervention method considered to effect changes in the outcome measures. Only two studies mentioned alternative possible causal mechanisms.

conclusionSeveral limitations could affect the outcomes of IT-based diabetes management interventions to an unknown degree. These limitations make it difficult to attribute changes solely to such interventions.

Indexed as

Disease ManagementAustraliaClinical Trials as TopicDiabetes MellitusDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2FemaleGlycated HemoglobinGuideline AdherenceHumansMaleMedical InformaticsMEDLARSMiddle AgedOutcome Assessment, Health CarePractice Guidelines as TopicResearch DesignGlycated Hemoglobinhemoglobin A1c protein, human

Identifiers

PMID19917136
PMCPMC2783014

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.