Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26844130›Full record

ArticlePreventive medicine reports2015

Effect of mobile reminders on screening yield during opportunistic screening for type 2 diabetes mellitus in a primary health care setting: A randomized trial.

Sathish Kumar, Hemant Deepak Shewade, Kavita Vasudevan, Kathamuthu Durairaju, V S Santhi, Bhuvaneswary Sunderamurthy, Velavane Krishnakumari, Krishna Chandra Panigrahi

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Preventive medicine reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Screening for type 2 diabetes mellitus.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sathish KumarIndira Gandhi Medical College and Research Institute (IGMCRI), Puducherry, India.
Hemant Deepak ShewadeInternational Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease, New Delhi, India.
Kavita VasudevanIndira Gandhi Medical College and Research Institute (IGMCRI), Puducherry, India.
Kathamuthu DurairajuPrimary Health Centre, Lawspet, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Puducherry, India.
V S SanthiPrimary Health Centre, Lawspet, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Puducherry, India.
Bhuvaneswary SunderamurthyIndira Gandhi Medical College and Research Institute (IGMCRI), Puducherry, India.
Velavane KrishnakumariPrimary Health Centre, Lawspet, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Puducherry, India.
Krishna Chandra PanigrahiIndira Gandhi Medical College and Research Institute (IGMCRI), Puducherry, India.
Indira Gandhi Medical College and Research Institute · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective. We wanted to study whether mobile reminders increased follow-up for definitive tests resulting in higher screening yield during opportunistic screening for diabetes. Methods. This was a facility-based parallel randomized controlled trial during routine outpatient department hours in a primary health care setting in Puducherry, India (2014). We offered random blood glucose testing to non-pregnant non-diabetes adults with age >30 years (667 total, 390 consented); eligible outpatients (random blood glucose ≥ 6.1 mmol/l, n = 268) were requested to follow-up for definitive tests (fasting and postprandial blood glucose). Eligible outpatients either received (intervention arm, n = 133) or did not receive mobile reminder (control arm, n = 135) to follow-up for definitive tests. We measured capillary blood glucose using a glucometer to make epidemiological diagnosis of diabetes. The trial was registered with Clinical Trial Registry of India (CTRI/2014/10/005138). Results. 85.7% of outpatients in intervention arm returned for definitive test when compared to 53.3% in control arm [Relative Risk = 1.61, (0.95 Confidence Interval - 1.35, 1.91)]. Screening yield in intervention and control arm was 18.6% and 10.2% respectively. Etiologic fraction was 45.2% and number needed to screen was 11.9. Conclusion. In countries like India, which is emerging as the diabetes capital of the world, considering the wide prevalent use of mobile phones, and real life resource limited settings in which this study was carried out, mobile reminders during opportunistic screening in primary health care setting improve screening yield of diabetes.

Indexed as

CI, confidence intervalCTRI, Clinical Trial Registry of IndiaDiabetes mellitus, type 2FBG, fasting blood glucoseHbA1C, glycosylated hemoglobinIndiaLoss to follow-upNNS, number needed to screenNPCDCS, National Programme for Prevention and Control of Diabetes, Cardiovascular diseases and StrokeOPD, Out Patient DepartmentOperational researchOpportunistic screeningOutpatientsPHC, Primary Health CentrePPBG, postprandial blood glucosePrimary health carePrimary Health CentreRandomized controlled trialRBG, random blood glucoseRCT, randomized controlled trialReminder system

Identifiers

PMID26844130
PMCPMC4721301
OpenAlexW1141872502

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.