ReviewJournal of diabetes and metabolic disorders2022
Knowledge gaps in diabetes research: an evidence mapping of the literature.
Review in Journal of diabetes and metabolic disorders, 2022. 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.
- Dissemination and diffusion of research to address the opioid crisis in justice settings: a Justice Community Opioid Innovation Network (JCOIN) case study.Research square · 2025Article
- Validation of the self-reported diagnosis of diabetes mellitus, hypercholesterolemia, and hypertension in Iran; STEPS 2016.Journal of diabetes and metabolic disorders · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Mapping the available evidence can be used to inform current diabetes research, identify relevant gaps, and prioritize future research. In this regard, we mapped diabetes research performed in Iran. Method: We searched the Scopus and PubMed databases from 01/01/2015 till 01/01/2020 using keywords such as diabetes and Iran. The included articles were classified according to their document types, level of evidence, and subject areas. Results: The majority of the included articles (53%) were related to diabetes types, followed by complications (28%). Most of the documents were original articles (82%), and reviews were 18% of the publications. Systematic reviews constitute only 6% of the total documents. Observational studies were the most common types of study designs (26%), followed by clinical trials (20%). Moreover, topics on control and management of diabetes were the most prevalent subject areas (58%), and fewer studies were on preventive strategies (6%). In diabetes management studies, less attention has been paid to evaluate psychological (10%), educational (9%), and physical activity-related (7%) interventions. There was a shortage of secondary studies related to physical activity, psychology, diagnostic, and screening-related studies. Conclusion: To fill diabetes research gaps, more investment in cost-effectiveness interventions, such as preventive strategies and behavioral self-management programs, need. Moreover, we need to pay more attention on applied sciences and real world evidence to bridge translational gaps from bench to bedside. In this regard, further data synthesis can be helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of the available studies and avoiding unnecessary investigations.
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.