ArticleSystematic reviews2015
Protocol for systematic review of evidence on the determinants and influence of early glycaemic control in childhood-onset type 1 diabetes.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLandmark studies in adult-onset type 1 diabetes (T1D) populations indicate that improved glycaemic control through use of intensive insulin therapy is strongly associated with reduced risk for the development of diabetes-related complications and mortality in later years. However, it is unclear whether these associations can be extrapolated to childhood-onset T1D, given the influence of other important biological and psychosocial determinants of glycaemic control, particularly during adolescence. The aims of the review are (1) to investigate the impact of early glycaemic control (within the first 2 years after diagnosis) on subsequent glycaemic trends and risk of complications during the life course of childhood-onset T1D and (2) to identify the predictors of early glycaemic control in children and young people (0-25 years).
methodsThe methods used in this study are systematic identification, review and mapping of quantitative (intervention and observational) and qualitative literature; assessing the effect and predictors of early glycaemic control in T1D (diagnosed ≤18 years) on risk or prevalence of later complications. An iterated search strategy, with no language or period restrictions, was applied to identify studies from six electronic databases. This will be supplemented by hand-searching (reference lists and contacting authors of studies meeting the inclusion criteria). Studies assessing glycaemic control within the first 2 years of diagnosis in children (at baseline) will be quality-assessed against predefined criteria and mapped descriptively to future health outcomes. Extracted data will be analysed and synthesised using narrative and forest plots or harvest plots for quantitative evidence and thematic analyses for qualitative studies. To get a deeper understanding of the predictors of early glycaemic control in reducing complications in childhood and adult life, we will integrate qualitative and quantitative evidence using mixed methods or parallel synthesis approach. DISCUSSION: These linked reviews will be the first to systematically investigate the effects of early glycaemic control and integrate both the quantitative and qualitative evidence on predictors of early glycaemic control in childhood-onset T1D in reducing future diabetes complications. This will help identify and map current research and inform development of effective future interventions. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42015024546.
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.