Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42232303›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in clinical diabetes and healthcare2026

Mapping the storm: a scoping review of diabetic emergencies in Africa.

Alexis Harerimana, Gugu Mchunu

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in clinical diabetes and healthcare, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Alexis HarerimanaFaculty of Health Sciences, Durban University of Technology, Durban, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.
Gugu MchunuFaculty of Health Sciences, Durban University of Technology, Durban, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: This scoping review aimed to map the evidence on the patterns and burden of diabetic emergencies among people with diabetes in Africa. Methods: The review followed the Levac et al. framework and the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. A systematic search was conducted across five electronic databases (CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science), and manual searches in Google and Google Scholar were conducted for studies published between 2015 and 2025. From 1,207 records, 25 studies met the inclusion criteria. Extracted data were analyzed using thematic analysis and descriptive numerical summaries. Findings: Of the 25 reviewed studies, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) was the most commonly reported emergency, appearing in 17 studies, with proportions ranging from 2.0% to 92.6%. This was followed by hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state (HHS), reported in 11 studies (4.5%-50.6%), and hypoglycemia, reported in 9 studies (0.8%-28.3%). Common determinants included infections and intercurrent illness, poor glycemic control, treatment non-adherence or discontinuation, and limited access to ongoing care. Reported in-hospital mortality ranged from 5% to 17.1%, with DKA case fatality reaching 30% in some studies. Median hospital stay generally ranged from 6 to 9 days. Conclusion: Diabetic emergencies are a major, yet largely preventable, cause of illness and death among people with diabetes in Africa. Conditions such as DKA place a heavy strain on African healthcare systems. To reduce the rates of these avoidable complications, it is essential to improve primary care for early detection and ensure consistent access to insulin and glucose monitoring.

Indexed as

acute diabetic complicationsAfricadiabetic emergenciesdiabetic ketoacidosishyperosmolar hyperglycemic statesevere hypoglycemia

Identifiers

PMID42232303
PMCPMC13222817

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.