ArticleDiabetology & metabolic syndrome2016
Comparison between adherence assessments and blood glucose monitoring measures to predict glycemic control in adults with type 1 diabetes: a cross-sectional study.
Article in Diabetology & metabolic syndrome, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Videoconferencing for Teens With Diabetes: Family Matters.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2016Trial
- A novel AI-enhanced microwave sensor employing defected ground structure for non-invasive glucose monitoring.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Factors associated with adherence to diabetes care recommendations among children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes: a facility-based study in two urban diabetes clinics in Uganda.Diabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity : targets and therapy · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdherence to treatment has been defined as the degree to which a patient's behavior corresponds to medical or health advice; however, the most appropriate method to evaluate adherence to diabetes care has yet to be identified. We conducted analyses to compare adherence assessments and blood glucose monitoring measures with regard to their ability to predict glycemic control in adults with type 1 diabetes.
methodsWe analyzed four instruments to evaluate adherence: Self-Care Inventory-Revised, a self-administered survey; Diabetes Self-Monitoring Profile (DSMP), administered by trained researchers; a categorical (yes/no/sometimes) adherence self-evaluation; and a continuous (0-100) adherence self-evaluation. Blood glucose monitoring frequency was evaluated by self-report, diary, and meter download.
resultsParticipants (n = 82) were aged 39.0 ± 13.1 years with a mean diabetes duration of 21.2 ± 11.1 years; 27 % monitored blood glucose >4 times/day. The DSMP score was the strongest predictor of glycemic control (r = -0.32, P = 0.004) among adherence assessments, while blood glucose monitoring frequency assessed by meter download was the strongest predictor among blood glucose monitoring measures (r = -40, P < 0.001). All the self-report assessments had a significant but weak correlation with glycemic control (r ≤ 0.28, P ≤ 0.02). The final adjusted model identified the assessment of blood glucose monitoring frequency by meter download as the most robust predictor of HbA1c (estimate effect size = -0.58, P = 0.003).
conclusionsIn efforts to evaluate adherence, blood glucose monitoring frequency assessed by meter download has the strongest relationship with glycemic control in adults with type 1 diabetes.
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.