Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25943398›Full record

SynthesisBMC public health2015

Effectiveness of peer support for improving glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Li Qi, Qin Liu, Xiaoling Qi, Na Wu, Wenge Tang, Hongyan Xiong

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC public health, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07499375 (Effect of a Peer Support Intervention on Glycemic Control and Economic Burden Among Patients With Diabetes on Follow-up at a Tertiary Hospital), which is not on this map. Cited by 66 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
66citing papers in PubMed, 12 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.

NCT07499375 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Effect of a Peer Support Intervention on Glycemic Control and Economic Burden Among Patients With Diabetes on Follow-up at a Tertiary Hospital: A Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorAddis Ababa UniversityRan2024 to 2025Enrolled100ConditionsPeer Support InterventionArmsPeer led educational intervention program
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

66 citing papers in PubMed, 12 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. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Review

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

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

6 authors.

Li QiDepartment of Military Epidemiology, College of Military Prevention, Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China. molly_sunny2012@163.com.
Qin LiuSchool of Public Health and Management, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China. Qinliu1980@163.com.
Xiaoling QiDepartment of Dental Medicine, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China. Xiaolinqi@163.com.
Na WuDepartment of Military Epidemiology, College of Military Prevention, Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China. Wunawuna2012@163.com.
Wenge TangChongqing Municipal Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Chongqing, China. wengetang@163.com.
Hongyan XiongDepartment of Military Epidemiology, College of Military Prevention, Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China. qili19812012@126.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo assess the effects of peer support at improving glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes.

methodsRelevant electronic databases were sought for this investigation up to Dec 2014. Randomized controlled trials involving patients with type 2 diabetes that evaluated the effect of peer support on glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) concentrations were included. The pooled mean differences (MD) between intervention and control groups with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using random-effects model. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool was used to assess the risk of bias.

resultsThirteen randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. Peer support resulted in a significant reduction in HbA1c (MD -0.57 [95% CI: -0.78 to -0.36]). Programs with moderate or high frequency of contact showed a significant reduction in HbA1c levels (MD -0.52 [95% CI: -0.60 to -0.44] and -0.75 [95% CI: -1.21 to -0.29], respectively), whereas programs with low frequency of contact showed no significant reduction (MD -0.32 [95% CI: -0.74 to 0.09]). The reduction in HbA1c were greater among patients with a baseline HbA1c ≥ 8.5% (MD -0.78 [95% CI: -1.06 to -0.51]) and between 7.5 ~ 8.5% (MD -0.76 [95% CI: -1.05 to -0.47]), than patients with HbA1c < 7.5% (MD -0.08 [95% CI: -0.32 to 0.16]).

conclusionsPeer support had a significant impact on HbA1c levels among patients with type 2 diabetes. Priority should be given to programs with moderate or high frequency of contact for target patients with poor glycemic control rather than programs with low frequency of contact that target the overall population of patients.

Indexed as

Glycated HemoglobinHealth BehaviorPeer GroupSocial SupportAdultAgedBlood GlucoseDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2FemaleHumansHyperglycemiaMaleMiddle AgedRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicReminder SystemsSelf CareBlood GlucoseGlycated Hemoglobin

Identifiers

PMID25943398
PMCPMC4425885

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.