ArticleBJGP open2022
Postal methods for monitoring HbA1c in diabetes mellitus: a protocol for systematic review.
Article in BJGP open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWorldwide there are an estimated 463 million people with diabetes. In the UK people with diabetes are offered annual review, which includes monitoring of haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). This can identify people with diabetes who are not meeting their glycaemic targets, enabling early intervention. Those who do not attend these reviews often have poorer health outcomes. During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a 77% reduction in monitoring of HbA1c in the UK.
aimIt is hypothesised that people with diabetes could take finger-prick samples at home for measurement of HbA1c. This study will examine the agreement and correlation of capillary HbA1c values compared with a venous reference standard. It will explore reliability and repeatability of capillary HbA1c testing methods, as well as the direction of effect of storage variables. The study will also explore patient acceptability and safety. It will look at capillary blood methods that would be suitable for posting. DESIGN &
settingA systematic review will be undertaken.
methodThe core terms of 'Diabetes', 'HbA1c' and 'Capillary sampling' will be used to search MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Web of Science Core Collection, Google Scholar, OpenGrey, and other grey literature, from database inception until 2021. Risk of bias will be assessed using the 'COSMIN Risk of Bias tool to assess the quality of studies on reliability and measurement error'.
conclusionA narrative synthesis will be produced to explore whether there are viable postal alternatives to venous sampling, as well as exploring acceptability and safety of patient self-collection.
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.