Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33764666›Full record

Observational studyDiabetes, obesity & metabolism2021

Effects of the COVID-19 lockdown on glycaemic control in subjects with type 2 diabetes: the glycalock study.

Luca D'Onofrio, Silvia Pieralice, Ernesto Maddaloni, Carmen Mignogna, Sara Sterpetti, Lucia Coraggio, Cecilia Luordi, Gloria Guarisco, Gaetano Leto, Frida Leonetti and 2 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyObservational Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in Diabetes, obesity & metabolism, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on dyslipidemia in peritoneal dialysis patients.Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Effectiveness of Using the FreeStyle LibreDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  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

12 authors.

Luca D'OnofrioExperimental Medicine Department, Sapienza University of Rome, Latina, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3905-0139
Silvia PieraliceEndocrinology and Diabetes Unit, Campus Bio-Medico University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Ernesto MaddaloniExperimental Medicine Department, Sapienza University of Rome, Latina, Italy.
Carmen MignognaExperimental Medicine Department, Sapienza University of Rome, Latina, Italy.
Sara SterpettiExperimental Medicine Department, Sapienza University of Rome, Latina, Italy.
Lucia CoraggioExperimental Medicine Department, Sapienza University of Rome, Latina, Italy.
Cecilia LuordiExperimental Medicine Department, Sapienza University of Rome, Latina, Italy.
Gloria GuariscoDiabetes Unit, Department of Medical-Surgical Sciences and Biotechnologies, Santa Maria Goretti Hospital, Sapienza University of Rome, Latina, Italy.
Gaetano LetoDiabetes Unit, Department of Medical-Surgical Sciences and Biotechnologies, Santa Maria Goretti Hospital, Sapienza University of Rome, Latina, Italy.
Frida LeonettiDiabetes Unit, Department of Medical-Surgical Sciences and Biotechnologies, Santa Maria Goretti Hospital, Sapienza University of Rome, Latina, Italy.
Silvia ManfriniEndocrinology and Diabetes Unit, Campus Bio-Medico University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Raffaella BuzzettiExperimental Medicine Department, Sapienza University of Rome, Latina, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1490-6041

Funding

No funding supported this study.
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo assess the effect of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) lockdown on glycaemic control in subjects with type 2 diabetes (T2D). MATERIALS AND

methodsIn this observational, multicentre, retrospective study conducted in the Lazio region, Italy, we compared the differences in the HbA1c levels of 141 subjects with T2D exposed to lockdown with 123 matched controls with T2D who attended the study centres 1 year before. Basal data were collected from 9 December to 9 March and follow-up data from 3 June to 10 July in 2020 for the lockdown group, and during the same timeframes in 2019 for the control groups. Changes in HbA1c (ΔHbA1c) and body mass index (ΔBMI) during lockdown were compared among patients with different psychological well-being, as evaluated by tertiles of the Psychological General Well-Being Index (PGWBS).

resultsNo difference in ΔHbA1c was found between the lockdown and control groups (lockdown group -0.1% [-0.5%-0.3%] vs. control group -0.1% [-0.4%-0.2%]; p = .482). Also, no difference was found in ΔBMI (p = .316) or ΔGlucose (p = .538). In the lockdown group, subjects with worse PGWBS showed a worsening of HbA1c (p = .041 for the trend among PGWBS tertiles) and BMI (p = .022).

conclusionsThe COVID-19 lockdown did not significantly impact glycaemic control in people with T2D. People with poor psychological well-being may experience a worsening a glycaemic control because of restrictions resulting from lockdown. These findings may aid healthcare providers in diabetes management once the second wave of COVID-19 has ended.

Indexed as

COVID-19Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2Blood GlucoseCommunicable Disease ControlGlycemic ControlHumansItalyRetrospective StudiesSARS-CoV-2Blood Glucosecovid-19 lockdownglycaemic controlpsychological healthtype 2 diabetes

Identifiers

PMID33764666
PMCPMC8251001

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.