ArticleDiabetology & metabolic syndrome2022
Quality of care in patients with type 1 diabetes during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cohort study from Southern Brazil.
Article in Diabetology & metabolic syndrome, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Disruption to diabetes and hypertension care during the COVID-19 pandemic in Latin America and the Caribbean and mitigation approaches: a scoping review.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Advancing healthcare with artificial intelligence: diagnostic accuracy of machine learning algorithm in diagnosis of diabetic retinopathy in the Brazilian population.Diabetology & metabolic syndrome · 2024Article
- Cardiovascular Statistics - Brazil 2023.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2024Article
- Article
- The impact of patient navigation on glycemic control, adherence to self-care and knowledge about diabetes: an intervention study.Diabetology & metabolic syndrome · 2023Article
- Glycemic Control in Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- The impact of COVID-19 on the doctor-patient relationship in China.Frontiers in public health · 2022Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOptimal glycemic control is the main goal for patients with diabetes. The results of type 1 diabetes patients' neglected demands during the pandemic can determine a long-term negative clinical, social, and economic impact, and result in worse diabetes control and a higher incidence of chronic complications. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak in the quality of care of patients with type 1 diabetes in Southern Brazil.
methodsCohort study based on electronic medical records of patients with type 1 diabetes, with scheduled appointments between January 1st 2020, and November 6th 2020, at a university public hospital. The quality indicators used were: assessment of albuminuria and/or serum creatinine, lipid profile, thyroid-stimulating hormone, glycated hemoglobin, retinopathy, and neuropathy. McNemar test was used to analyze categorical variables and the Wilcoxon test for continuous variables.
resultsOut of 289 patients, 49.5% were women aged 40 ± 12 years old. During the pandemic, 252 patients had at least one face-to-face appointment canceled. The quality of care indicators showed a significant worsening during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to the previous year (p < 0.001). In 2019, 23.2% of the participants had all the indicators evaluated, while in 2020, during the pandemic, only 3.5% had all of them evaluated.
conclusionThe COVID-19 pandemic hindered the offer of comprehensive and quality care to patients with type 1 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.