ArticleJournal of diabetes investigation2019
Understanding of antidiabetic medication is associated with blood glucose in patients with type 2 diabetes: At baseline date of the KAMOGAWA-DM cohort study.
Article in Journal of diabetes investigation, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exploring patient's perspective of barriers to diabetic medication adherence in Jazan, Saudi Arabia, using the social determinants of health model.SAGE open medicine · 2024Article
- Knowledge Assessment During the Medication Process Use by Older Patients on Clinical Routine: A Pilot Study.Turkish journal of pharmaceutical sciences · 2023Article
- Handgrip measurement as a useful benchmark for locomotive syndrome in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A KAMOGAWA-DM cohort study.Journal of diabetes investigation · 2020Article
- Article
- Understanding of antidiabetic medication is associated with blood glucose in patients with type 2 diabetes: At baseline date of the KAMOGAWA-DM cohort study.Journal of diabetes investigation · 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
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
AIMS/
introductionMedication adherence, which is decreased by a poor understanding of medications, has a close association with blood glucose level in patients with type 2 diabetes. However, a relationship between the understanding of antidiabetic medication and blood glucose level in patients with type 2 diabetes is unclear. Here, we aimed to investigate the relationship between the understanding of antidiabetic medication and blood glucose level in patients with type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND
methodsLifestyle factors were evaluated by a questionnaire method, in the present cross-sectional study. Poor understanding of antidiabetic medication (PUAD) was defined as a discrepancy between the answer and the actual use of oral antidiabetic medication on the questionnaire. Poor blood glucose level was defined as hemoglobin A1c ≥8%. To investigate the impact of PUAD on poor blood glucose level, propensity-score matching analysis was used to remove the bias of confounding variables, including sex, age, log (duration of diabetes +1), body mass index, number of oral antidiabetic medications, smoking status, alcohol drinking, exercise, nephropathy, neuropathy, oral antidiabetic medications and insulin.
resultsAmong 479 patients, 40 patients (8.4%) were categorized into the PUAD group. The hemoglobin A1c of patients with PUAD was higher than that of patients without (7.5 [1.3] vs 7.2 [0.9]%, P = 0.041). In the propensity-matched 74 patients, PUAD was associated with poor blood glucose level (odds ratio 5.45, 95% confidence interval 1.54-25.8, P = 0.007) by logistic regression analysis.
conclusionA poor understanding of antidiabetic medication is associated with poor blood glucose level in patients with type 2 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.