Trial reportDiabetes technology & therapeutics2015
Blood glucose self-monitoring patterns in Mexican Americans: further lessons from the Starr County Border Health Initiative.
Trial report in Diabetes technology & therapeutics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Using the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities framework to better understand disparities in major amputations.Seminars in vascular surgery · 2023Review
- Self-care and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM): a literature review in sex-related differences.Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 2022Review
- Glycemic control and its associated factors among diabetes mellitus patients at Ayder comprehensive specialized hospital, Mekelle-Ethiopia.Adipocyte · 2018Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose was to describe patterns of home self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in Mexican Americans with type 2 diabetes mellitus enrolled in a diabetes self-management education protocol. Research questions were as follows: (1) What were the patterns and rates of home glucose self-monitoring over the 6-month course of the study? (2) What were the differences in monitoring rates between experimental and control groups? (3) What were the relationships between rates of monitoring and glycosylated hemoglobin (A1C), gender, and years with diabetes? SUBJECTS AND
methodsWe used a randomized (by group) repeated-measures pretest/posttest control group design. Glucometer data from an experimental group (diabetes self-management education plus nurse case management) and a comparison group (diabetes self-management education only) were analyzed. Data were collected at baseline and at 3 and 6 months.
resultsOverall average SMBG rates were low. Experimental and control group monitoring levels were not significantly different. More females than males never monitored glucose values, but more females than males checked at least one time per week. Those participants who checked their glucose levels more than once per week had diabetes for a longer period of time. Rates of monitoring were not strongly associated with A1C levels at 3 and 6 months, but at 6 months A1C levels were statistically significantly different based on whether or not individuals monitored their glucose levels (P=0.03, n=71).
conclusionsSMBG rates were low in this study despite SMBG education and access to free glucometers and test strips. The lower rates of SMBG may reflect the effects of unexpected environmental challenges, but exact causes remain unclear. Reasons for low rates of SMBG need to be explored further, especially in underserved communities.
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.