Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22971356›Full record

Trial reportTrials2012

A cluster randomized controlled trial of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of intermediate care clinics for diabetes (ICCD): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Natalie Armstrong, Darrin Baines, Richard Baker, Richard Crossman, Melanie Davies, Ainsley Hardy, Kamlesh Khunti, Sudhesh Kumar, Joseph Paul O'Hare, Neil Raymond and 5 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Trials, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00945204 (Evaluation of Intermediate Care Clinics for Diabetes), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 32% 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.

NCT00945204 nacompletednot on this map

Evaluation of Intermediate Care Clinics for Diabetes

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity Hospitals, LeicesterRan2007 to 2011Enrolled1,997ConditionsType 2 DiabetesArmsintermediate care clinics (ICCs)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. 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

15 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Natalie ArmstrongWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Darrin Baines
Richard Baker
Richard Crossman
Melanie Davies
Ainsley Hardy
Kamlesh Khunti
Sudhesh Kumar
Joseph Paul O'Hare
Neil Raymond
Ponnusamy Saravanan
Nigel Stallard
Ala Szczepura
Andrew Wilson
ICCD Study Group
University of Warwick · GBUniversity of Leicester · GBLeicester Royal Infirmary · GB

Funding

Department of Health 08/1504/110
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWorld-wide healthcare systems are faced with an epidemic of type 2 diabetes. In the United Kingdom, clinical care is primarily provided by general practitioners (GPs) rather than hospital specialists. Intermediate care clinics for diabetes (ICCD) potentially provide a model for supporting GPs in their care of people with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes and in their management of cardiovascular risk factors. This study aims to (1) compare patients with type 2 diabetes registered with practices that have access to an ICCD service with those that have access only to usual hospital care; (2) assess the cost-effectiveness of the intervention; and (3) explore the views and experiences of patients, health professionals and other stakeholders. METHODS/

designThis two-arm cluster randomized controlled trial (with integral economic evaluation and qualitative study) is set in general practices in three UK Primary Care Trusts. Practices are randomized to one of two groups with patients referred to either an ICCD (intervention) or to hospital care (control). Intervention group: GP practices in the intervention arm have the opportunity to refer patients to an ICCD - a multidisciplinary team led by a specialist nurse and a diabetologist. Patients are reviewed and managed in the ICCD for a short period with a goal of improving diabetes and cardiovascular risk factor control and are then referred back to practice. or CONTROL GROUP: Standard GP care, with referral to secondary care as required, but no access to ICCD. Participants are adults aged 18 years or older who have type 2 diabetes that is difficult for their GPs to control. The primary outcome is the proportion of participants reaching three risk factor targets: HbA1c (≤7.0%); blood pressure (<140/80); and cholesterol (<4 mmol/l), at the end of the 18-month intervention period. The main secondary outcomes are the proportion of participants reaching individual risk factor targets and the overall 10-year risks for coronary heart disease(CHD) and stroke assessed by the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) risk engine. Other secondary outcomes include body mass index and waist circumference, use of medication, reported smoking, emotional adjustment, patient satisfaction and views on continuity, costs and health related quality of life. We aimed to randomize 50 practices and recruit 2,555 patients. DISCUSSION: Forty-nine practices have been randomized, 1,997 patients have been recruited to the trial, and 20 patients have been recruited to the qualitative study. Results will be available late 2012.

trial registration[ClinicalTrials.gov: Identifier NCT00945204].

Indexed as

Community Health ServicesDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Intermediate Care FacilitiesResearch DesignCardiovascular DiseasesCost-Benefit AnalysisGeneral PracticeHealth Care CostsHumansPatient Care TeamPrimary Health CareReferral and ConsultationRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsTime FactorsTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID22971356
PMCPMC3512506
OpenAlexW2135060590

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.