Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32350016›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2020

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of a diabetes education and behavioural weight management programme versus a diabetes education programme in adults with a recent diagnosis of type 2 diabetes: study protocol for the Glucose Lowering through Weight management (GLoW) randomised controlled trial.

Amy L Ahern, Jenny Woolston, Emma Wells, Stephen J Sharp, Nazrul Islam, Emma Ruth Lawlor, Robbie Duschinsky, Andrew J Hill, Brett Doble, Ed Wilson and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. 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

16 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Amy L AhernMRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, UK ala34@cam.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-5069-4758
Jenny WoolstonMRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, UK.
Emma WellsMRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, UK.
Stephen J SharpMRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, UK.
Nazrul IslamMRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, UK.
Emma Ruth LawlorMRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, UK.
Robbie DuschinskyPrimary Care Unit, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, UK.
Andrew J HillSchool of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK.
Brett DobleProgramme in Health Services and Systems Research, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-4948-8831
Ed WilsonNorwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8369-1577
Stephen MorrisPrimary Care Unit, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, UK.
Carly A HughesPatient and Public Involvement Representative, Fakenham Medical Practice, Fakenham, Norfolk, UK.
Alan BrennanSchool of Health and Related Research, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Jennifer BostockPatient and Public Involvement Representative, Kent, UK.
Clare BoothbyMRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, UK.
Simon J GriffinMRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, UK.
University of Cambridge · GBUniversity of East Anglia · GBDuke-NUS Medical School · SGUniversity of Leeds · GBUniversity of Sheffield · GB

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-0216-20010Medical Research Council MC_UU_00006/6Medical Research Council MC_UU_12015/4
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPeople with type 2 diabetes (T2D) can improve glycaemic control or even achieve remission through weight loss and reduce their use of medication and risk of cardiovascular disease. The Glucose Lowering through Weight management (GLoW) trial will evaluate whether a tailored diabetes education and behavioural weight management programme (DEW) is more effective and cost-effective than a diabetes education (DE) programme in helping people with overweight or obesity and a recent diagnosis of T2D to lower their blood glucose, lose weight and improve other markers of cardiovascular risk. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study is a pragmatic, randomised, single-blind, parallel group, two-arm, superiority trial. We will recruit 576 adults with body mass index>25 kg/m ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was received from East of Scotland Research Ethics Service on 15 May 2018 (18/ES/0048). This protocol (V.3) was approved on 19 June 2019. Findings will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and communicated to other stakeholders as appropriate. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN18399564.

Indexed as

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2Weight Reduction ProgramsAdultCost-Benefit AnalysisEquivalence Trials as TopicFemaleGlucoseHumansMalePragmatic Clinical Trials as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicScotlandSingle-Blind MethodGlucosediabetes educationprimary carerandomised controlled trialtype 2 diabetesweight management

Identifiers

PMID32350016
PMCPMC7213851
OpenAlexW3019944458

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.