ArticleAtencion primaria2018
[Trends in the level of control of patients with type 2 diabetes from 2010 to 2015].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Differences between diabetic and non-diabetic patients with community-acquired pneumonia in primary care in Spain.BMC infectious diseases · 2019Article
- Improvement in Quality of Care for Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in Hungary Between 2008 and 2016: Results from Two Population-Based Representative Surveys.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAim: To examine the trend in the level of control of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), blood pressure (BP), and LDL-cholesterol (LDL) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus between 2010 and 2015.
methodsSetting: 3 cut-offs in the years 2010, 2013, and 2015. Southeast area of Madrid.
designDescriptive and cross-sectional epidemiological study.
participantsPatients diagnosed and registered with type 2 diabetes. N=41,096 (2010), n=49,658 (2013), n=6,674 (2015) MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Measurement or not in the last year of HbA1c, BP, and LDL. Control of HbA1c (<7% individual targeting), BP (<140/90mmHg), and LDL (<100mg/dL, if cardiovascular disease <70mg/dL). Data were collected from electronic records of clinical history. The Chi-square test was used.
resultsThe percentages of patients with each parameter measured in 2010, 2013 and 2015 were: HbA1c: 36.4%, 37.0%, 62.0% (P<.001); BP: 33.2%, 43.3%, 65.0% (P<.001); LDL: 32.9%, 33.2%, 43.5% (P<.001). The percentages of patients with each parameter measured and controlled in 2010, 2013, and 2015 were: HbA1c: 59.6%, 59.1%, 79.6% (P<.001); BP: 74.9%, 67.4%, 79.2% (P<.001); LDL: 41.8%, 58.3%, 58.8% (P<.001)
conclusionIn the 2010-2015 period, a sustained but insufficient trend of better control of HbA1c, BP and LDL was observed in patients with diabetes. The frequency of the measurements of these parameters improved more than the control of them. It seems that efforts to improve care for the patient with diabetes pay off, but they still have to be maintained.
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.