Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37567729›Full record

ArticleFamily medicine and community health2023

Glycaemic monitoring and control among high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes in Australian general practice during COVID-19.

Kirrilee Jane Barlow, Paul P Fahey, Evan Atlantis

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Family medicine and community health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kirrilee Jane BarlowSchool of Health Sciences, Western Sydney University, Kingswood, New South Wales, Australia kirrileejbarlow@gmail.com.ORCID 0009-0005-4786-2753
Paul P FaheySchool of Health Sciences, Western Sydney University, Kingswood, New South Wales, Australia.
Evan AtlantisSchool of Health Sciences, Western Sydney University, Kingswood, New South Wales, Australia.
Western Sydney University · AUThe University of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic disrupted general practice worldwide, primarily due to public health measures that restricted access to care for chronic diseases, such as type 2 diabetes. These measures disproportionately affected higher risk groups with type 2 diabetes, such as older people and those with obesity. This study aims to identify factors that may have influenced the rates of compliance with testing guidelines and target glycaemic control in Australian general practice settings during the COVID-19 pandemic.

methodsWe used a serial cross-sectional study design of patient record data from general practices representative of the Nepean Blue Mountains Local Health District between 2020 and 2022. Aggregated patient records were analysed to determine percentages of subgroups with a blood glycaemic testing interval consistent with guidelines (≥1 within 15 months) and achieving target glycaemic control (by glycated haemoglobin of ≤7%). Linear regression models were used to test the association between independent and dependent variables, and to generate regression coefficients and 95% CI, corrected for time trends.

resultsOf the average 14 356 patient records per month, 55% were male, 53% had a body mass index (BMI) <30 and 55% were aged 55-74 years. Compliance to testing guidelines slightly decreased (75-73%) but was positively associated with male sex (2.5%, 95% CI 1.7%, 3.4%), BMI≥30 (9.6%, 95% CI 8.8%, 10.4%) and 55-74 years (7.5%, 95% CI 6.6%, 8.5%) and 75 years and over age groups (7.1%, 95% CI 6.2%, 7.9%). Mean percentage of patient records achieving target glycaemic control slightly increased and was negatively associated with male sex (-3.7%, 95% CI -5.2%, -2.2%), but positively associated with 55-74 years (4.5%, 95% CI 3.8%, 5.1%) and 75 years and over age groups (12.2%, 95% CI 4.5%, 20.0%). Compliance to testing guidelines increased with each additional general practice per 10 000 persons (8.4%, 95% CI 4.9%, 11.8%).

conclusionsDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, people with type 2 diabetes in Australia continued to follow glycaemic testing guidelines at the same rate. In fact, there was a slight improvement in glycaemic control among all subgroups of patients, including those at higher risk. These findings are encouraging, but the longer term impact of COVID-19 on type 2 diabetes care is still unclear.

Indexed as

COVID-19Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2General PracticeAgedAustraliaCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMalePandemicsCOVID-19Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2General PracticeObesity

Identifiers

PMID37567729
PMCPMC10423797
OpenAlexW4385778679

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.