ArticleBMC nursing2025
Effects of nurse-led telephone interventions on HbA1c levels in patients with type 2 diabetes: a Meta-analysis-based evaluation of follow-up protocols.
Article in BMC nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Management of type 2 diabetes, 2026. A consensus report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD).Diabetologia · 2026Article
- Implementing a RPM-enabled transitional care pathway for adults with poorly controlled diabetes: a quality improvement initiative.BMJ open quality · 2026Article
- Effectiveness of Wearable Technologies in Supporting Physical Activity and Metabolic Health in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic-Narrative Hybrid Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Integrative technologies in nursing-led interventions for diabetes management: a systematic review of efficacy and outcomes.BMC nursing · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTelephone interventions are promising for managing glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). However, optimal follow-up parameters, such as frequency, duration, content, and intervals, are yet to be standardized. This meta-analysis assesses the effectiveness of nurse-led telephone interventions in controlling HbA1c levels, with subgroup analyses based on these variables to provide evidence-based recommendations.
methodsSearches were conducted across PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, and China Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP) until February 2024. Study quality was evaluated using Cochrane risk of bias criteria, and data were analyzed with RevMan 5.4.
resultsThirteen studies, including 2,294 T2DM patients, showed that nurse-led telephone interventions significantly reduced HbA1c levels [MD = -0.59, 95% CI (-0.85, -0.34), P < 0.00001, Tau² = 0.15, I² = 87%]. Subgroup analyses indicated that protocols comprising 16 follow-ups [MD = -0.92, 95% CI (-1.71, -0.12), P = 0.02], each lasting 20-25 min [MD = -1.23, 95% CI (-1.63, -0.83), P < 0.001] with half a month intervals [MD = -1.29, 95% CI (-2.43, -0.15), P = 0.03] covering medication, diet, exercise, and glucose monitoring, were the most effective. Protocols involving 12 follow-ups [MD = -0.87, 95% CI (-1.28, -0.46), P < 0.001], each lasting 10-15 min [MD = -0.54, 95% CI (-1.02, -0.06), P = 0.03] at weekly intervals [MD = -0.93, 95% CI (-1.68, -0.17), P = 0.02], also demonstrated significant improvement. Publication bias was assessed using a funnel plot, Egger's Test (P = 0.108), and Begg's Test (P = 0.199), which indicated no significant bias.
conclusionsNurse-led telephone follow-ups effectively enhance HbA1c control in T2DM patients. While subgroup findings suggest optimal protocols, individual needs should guide intervention customization. Further high-quality RCTs are needed to validate these results. REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO: CRD42024578866.
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.