Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25107290›Full record

SynthesisJournal of general internal medicine2015

Shared medical appointments for patients with diabetes mellitus: a systematic review.

David Edelman, Jennifer M Gierisch, Jennifer R McDuffie, Eugene Oddone, John W Williams

Registry-linked trialOpen access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of general internal medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02836015 (Shared Medical Visits for Spanish-speaking Patients With Type 2 Diabetes), which is not on this map. Cited by 83 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
83citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
6.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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.

NCT02836015 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2016, after this paper: background citation

Shared Medical Visits for Spanish-speaking Patients With Type 2 Diabetes

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of NebraskaRan2016 to 2017Enrolled9ConditionsDiabetes Mellitus Type 2ArmsShared Medical Visit
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

83 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 166 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Group Medical Care: A Systematic Review of Health Service Performance.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. The Economic Evaluation of Team Clinic-Group Approach to a Care Model of Early Adolescents With Type 1 Diabetes.Journal of pediatric health care : official publication of National Association of Pediatric Nurse Associates & Practitioners
    Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2026
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

23 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

David EdelmanDurham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 411 W Chapel Hill Street, Suite 512, Durham, NC, 27701, USA, dedelman@duke.edu.
Jennifer M Gierisch
Jennifer R McDuffie
Eugene Oddone
John W Williams
Durham VA Medical Center · USDuke Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesShared medical appointments (SMAs) are an increasingly used system-redesign strategy for improving access to and quality of chronic illness care. We conducted a systematic review of the existing literature on SMA interventions for patients with diabetes in order to understand their impact on outcomes. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Web of Science from January 1996 through April 2012. PubMed search updated June 2013. STUDY SELECTION: English-language peer-reviewed publications of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), nonrandomized cluster controlled trials, controlled before-and-after studies, or interrupted time-series designs conducted among adult patients with diabetes. Two independent reviewers used prespecified criteria to screen titles and abstracts for full text review. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS

methodsTwo different reviewers abstracted data and rated study quality and strength of evidence. When possible, we used random-effects models to synthesize the effects quantitatively, reporting by a weighted difference of the means when the same scale was used across studies, and a standardized mean difference when the scales differed. We measured heterogeneity in study effects using Forest Plots, Cochran's Q, and I(2), and explored heterogeneity by using subgroup analyses for categorical variables and meta-regression analyses for continuous or discrete variables. Outcomes not suitable to meta-analysis were summarized qualitatively.

resultsTwenty-five articles representing 17 unique studies compared SMA interventions with usual care. Among patients with diabetes, SMAs improved hemoglobin A1c (∆ = -0.55 percentage points [95 % CI, -0.11 to -0.99]); improved systolic blood pressure (∆ = -5.2 mmHg [95 % CI, -3.0 to -7.4]); and did not improve LDL cholesterol (∆ = -6.6 mg/dl [95 % CI, 2.8 to -16.1]). Nonbiophysical outcomes, including economic outcomes, were reported too infrequently to meta-analyze, or to draw conclusions from. The A1c result had significant heterogeneity among studies, likely secondary to the heterogeneity among included SMA interventions. LIMITATION: Heterogeneity among the components of diabetes SMAs leads to uncertainty about what makes a particular SMA successful.

conclusionSMA interventions improve biophysical outcomes among patients with diabetes. There was inadequate literature to determine SMA effects on patient experience, utilization, and costs.

Indexed as

Appointments and SchedulesBlood PressureDiabetes MellitusGlycated HemoglobinHealth Care CostsHumansOrganizational InnovationOutcome Assessment, Health CarePatient SatisfactionPrimary Health CareGlycated Hemoglobinhemoglobin A1c protein, human

Identifiers

PMID25107290
PMCPMC4284267
OpenAlexW1963736444

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.