Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28245085›Full record

SynthesisHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2017

Effect on cardiovascular disease risk factors of interventions to alter consultations between practitioners and patients with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of trials in primary care.

Hajira Dambha-Miller, Andrew J M Cooper, Ann Louise Kinmonth, Simon J Griffin

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Patients' views on interactions with practitioners for type 2 diabetes: a longitudinal qualitative study in primary care over 10 years.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2018
    Article
  10. Article
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

4 authors.

Hajira Dambha-MillerPrimary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0175-443X
Andrew J M CooperMRC Epidemiology Unit, Institute of Metabolic Science, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Ann Louise KinmonthPrimary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Simon J GriffinPrimary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Funding

Department of Health DRF-2015-08-027Medical Research Council MC_UU_12015/4
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo examine the effect on cardiovascular (CVD) risk factors of interventions to alter consultations between practitioners and patients with type 2 diabetes. SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic and manual citation searching to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). INCLUSION CRITERIA: RCTs that compared usual care to interventions to alter consultations between practitioners and patients. The population was adults aged over 18 years with type 2 diabetes. Trials were set in primary care. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We recorded if explicit theory-based interventions were used, how consultations were measured to determine whether interventions had an effect on these and calculated weighted mean differences for CVD risk factors including glycated haemoglobin (HbA

resultsWe included seven RCTs with a total of 2277 patients with type 2 diabetes. A range of measures of the consultation was reported, and underlying theory to explain intervention processes was generally undeveloped and poorly applied. There were no overall effects on CVD risk factors; however, trials were heterogeneous. Subgroup analysis suggested some benefit among studies in which interventions demonstrated impact on consultations; statistically significant reductions in HbA

conclusionsEvidence of effect on CVD risk factors from interventions to alter consultations between practitioners and patients with type 2 diabetes was heterogeneous and inconclusive. This could be explained by variable impact of interventions on consultations. More research is required that includes robust measures of the consultations and better development of theory to elucidate mechanisms.

Indexed as

Cardiovascular DiseasesPrimary Health CareRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicReferral and ConsultationDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Glycated HemoglobinRisk FactorsGlycated Hemoglobincardiovascular diseaseconsultationdoctor-patient relationshippatient-practitioner interactionstype 2 diabetes

Identifiers

PMID28245085
PMCPMC5689230

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.