Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29151718›Full record

ArticleDiabetes spectrum : a publication of the American Diabetes Association2017

Achievement of Adequate Glycemic Control in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Comorbid Mental Health Conditions Treated in a Primary Care Setting.

Kaitlyn Brown, Katherine Fortenberry, Lisa Gren, Karen Gunning, Carrie McAdam-Marx

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diabetes spectrum : a publication of the American Diabetes Association, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 84% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kaitlyn BrownDepartment of Pharmacotherapy and.
Katherine FortenberryDepartment of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT.
Lisa GrenDepartment of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT.
Karen GunningDepartment of Pharmacotherapy and.
Carrie McAdam-MarxPharmaceutical Evaluation and Policy Division, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR.
University of Utah · USUniversity of Arkansas for Medical Sciences · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study investigated the association between the presence of a mental health condition (MHC) diagnosis and glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes in a primary care clinic network.

methodsThis retrospective cross-sectional study compared adequate glycemic control (A1C <8.0%) in patients with type 2 diabetes with and without any MHC, as well as by MHC subtypes of depression or anxiety, bipolar or schizophrenia disorders, and substance use disorder.

resultsOf 3,025 patients with type 2 diabetes, 721 (24%) had a diagnosis for one or more MHC. The majority (54.9%) were <65 years of age, female (54.9%), and Caucasian (74.5%). Mean A1C was statistically lower in the MHC cohort at 7.14 ± 1.66% compared to 7.38 ± 1.73% in the group without any MHC (

conclusionPatients with diabetes and MHCs had slightly better glycemic control than those without any MHC. However, the presence of substance use disorder may present more barriers to adequate glycemic control. Additional research is needed to identify barriers unique to each MHC to optimize diabetes management in this population.

Identifiers

PMID29151718
PMCPMC5687112
OpenAlexW2753083044

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.