Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36164545›Full record

ReviewHeliyon2022

Great diversity in the utilization and reporting of latent growth modeling approaches in type 2 diabetes: A literature review.

Sarah O'Connor, Claudia Blais, Miceline Mésidor, Denis Talbot, Paul Poirier, Jacinthe Leclerc

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Heliyon, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

6 authors.

Sarah O'ConnorResearch Centre, Institut universitaire de Cardiologie et Pneumologie de Québec-Université Laval (IUCPQ-UL), 2725 Ch. Ste-Foy, Quebec City, Quebec, G1V 4G5, Canada.
Claudia BlaisFaculty of Pharmacy, Université Laval, Ferdinand Vandry Pavillon, 1050 de La Médecine Avenue, Quebec City, Quebec, G1V 0A6, Canada.
Miceline MésidorDepartment of Social and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Ferdinand Vandry Pavillon, 1050 de La Médecine Avenue, Quebec City, Quebec, G1V 0A6, Canada.
Denis TalbotDepartment of Social and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Ferdinand Vandry Pavillon, 1050 de La Médecine Avenue, Quebec City, Quebec, G1V 0A6, Canada.
Paul PoirierResearch Centre, Institut universitaire de Cardiologie et Pneumologie de Québec-Université Laval (IUCPQ-UL), 2725 Ch. Ste-Foy, Quebec City, Quebec, G1V 4G5, Canada.
Jacinthe LeclercResearch Centre, Institut universitaire de Cardiologie et Pneumologie de Québec-Université Laval (IUCPQ-UL), 2725 Ch. Ste-Foy, Quebec City, Quebec, G1V 4G5, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The progression of complications of type 2 diabetes (T2D) is unique to each patient and can be depicted through individual temporal trajectories. Latent growth modeling approaches (latent growth mixture models [LGMM] or latent class growth analysis [LCGA]) can be used to classify similar individual trajectories in Objective: To review the literature of longitudinal studies using latent growth modeling approaches to study T2D. Methods: MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, CINAHL and Wb of Science were searched through August 25 Results: From the 4,694 citations screened, a total of 38 studies were included. The studies were published beetween 2011 and 2021 and the length of follow-up ranged from 8 weeks to 14 years. Six studies used LGMM, while 32 studies used LCGA. The fields of research varied from clinical research, psychological science, healthcare utilization research and drug usage/pharmaco-epidemiology. Data sources included primary data (clinical trials, prospective/retrospective cohorts, surveys), or secondary data (health records/registries, medico-administrative). Fifty percent of studies evaluated trajectory groups as exposures for a subsequent clinical outcome, while 24% used predictive models of group membership and 5% used both. Regarding the quality of reporting, trajectory groups were adequately presented, however many studies failed to report important decisions made for the trajectory group identification. Conclusion: Although LCGA were preferred, the contexts of utilization were diverse and unrelated to the type of methods. We recommend future authors to clearly report the decisions made regarding trajectory groups identification.

Indexed as

Care trajectoryDiabetes mellitusEpidemiologyGroup-based trajectory modelingHealth-care utilizationLatent class growth modeling

Identifiers

PMID36164545
PMCPMC9508412

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.