Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28780542›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2017

Improving risk factor management for patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes: a systematic review of healthcare interventions in primary care and community settings.

Mark E Murphy, Molly Byrne, Rose Galvin, Fiona Boland, Tom Fahey, Susan M Smith

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 86 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. The Effect of Health Literacy Interventions on Self-management in Chronic Diseases: A Systematic Review.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Guideline
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Mark E MurphyDepartment of General Practice, HRB Centre for Primary Care Research, Royal College of Surgeons, Dublin, Ireland.
Molly ByrneDepartment of Physiotherapy, University of Limerick, Ireland.
Rose GalvinHealth Behaviour Change Research Group, School of Psychology, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland.
Fiona BolandDepartment of General Practice, HRB Centre for Primary Care Research, Royal College of Surgeons, Dublin, Ireland.
Tom FaheyDepartment of General Practice, HRB Centre for Primary Care Research, Royal College of Surgeons, Dublin, Ireland.
Susan M SmithDepartment of General Practice, HRB Centre for Primary Care Research, Royal College of Surgeons, Dublin, Ireland.
Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland · IEOllscoil na Gaillimhe – University of Galway · IEUniversity of Limerick · IE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesPoorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a major international health problem. Our aim was to assess the effectiveness of healthcare interventions, specifically targeting patients with poorly controlled T2DM, which seek to improve glycaemic control and cardiovascular risk in primary care settings.

designSystematic review.

settingPrimary care and community settings. INCLUDED STUDIES: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) targeting patients with poor glycaemic control were identified from Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and SCOPUS. Poor glycaemic control was defined as HbA1c over 59 mmol/mol (7.5%).

interventionsInterventions were classified as organisational, patient-oriented, professional, financial or regulatory. OUTCOMES: Primary outcomes were HbA1c, blood pressure and lipid control. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for eligibility, extracted data and assessed study quality. Meta-analyses were undertaken where appropriate using random-effects models. Subgroup analysis explored the effects of intervention type, baseline HbA1c, study quality and study duration. Meta-regression analyses were undertaken to investigate identified heterogeneity.

resultsForty-two RCTs were identified, including 11 250 patients, with most undertaken in USA. In general, studies had low risk of bias. The main intervention types were patient-directed (48%) and organisational (48%). Overall, interventions reduced HbA1c by -0.34% (95% CI -0.46% to -0.22%), but meta-analyses had high statistical heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses suggested that organisational interventions and interventions on those with baseline HbA1c over 9.5% had better improvements in HbA1c. Meta-regression analyses suggested that only interventions on those with population HbA1c over 9.5% were more effective. Interventions had a modest improvement of blood pressure and lipids, although baseline levels of control were generally good.

conclusionsThis review suggests that interventions for T2DM, in primary care, are better targeted at individuals with very poor glycaemic control and that organisational interventions may be more effective.

Indexed as

Community Health ServicesPrimary Health CareBlood GlucoseCardiovascular DiseasesDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Glycated HemoglobinHealth PromotionHumansQuality ImprovementRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRisk FactorsRisk ManagementBlood GlucoseGlycated Hemoglobinhemoglobin A1c protein, humandiabetes & endocrinologyorganisation of health servicesprimary care

Identifiers

PMID28780542
PMCPMC5724222
OpenAlexW2743048109

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.