ArticleSemergen
[Impact of the alteration of the continuity of care in diabetes type 2 patients during the COVID-19 pandemic].
Article in Semergen. 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.
- Exploring the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Patients with Type 2 Diabetes and Primary Care Utilisation: A Scoping Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in diabetes and dyslipidemia management in a Spanish region: a retrospective study of the Aragon population.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
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
aimTo assess the impact of the alteration of the continuity of care in patients with type 2 diabetes during the COVID-19 pandemic. MATERIAL AND
methodFollow-up study with 587 primary care patients with DM2, and control according to the redGDPS-2018 criteria in 2018 and 2020. Activities carried out and control status of patients were compared using statistical tests appropriate to type and distribution of each variable, for a significance level P≤.05.
resultsSample was made up of 587 patients with glycosylated hemoglobin (A1c) in 2018 (54% men), age of 66±11, in range of 29-91 years. All the care indicators decreased in 2020: A1c was determined in 68% of patients (382/558 after 29 deaths); 59% remained with good control, 17% with poor control, 10% improved and 14% worsened (P<.001). Those who had ECG and retinography performed in 2018 and not in 2020 show a lower degree of worsening than those who did not have them done in 2018 but they did in 2020 (16% vs 25%, P<.001 and 13% vs 42%, P=.002). Those who decrease their visits to family doctor and nurse show less deterioration than those who increase them (14% vs 26%; P<.001 and 17% vs 23%; P<.001).
conclusionsInattention impeded control of 32% of the patients. Poor control in 2020 was lower in those who were controlled in 2018, and who decreased their attendance at the health center in 2020. Possibly adequate pre-pandemic training in self-care has led to the empowerment of the patient during a pandemic period.
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.