MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2998954547 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034481

Effectiveness of non-pharmacological strategies in the management of type 2 diabetes in primary care: a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

2020· review· en· W2998954547 on OpenAlexaff
Renata Giacomini Oliveira Ferreira Leite, Luísa Rocco Banzato, Julia Simões Corrêa Galendi, Adriana Lúcia Mendes, Fernanda Bolfi, Areti Angeliki Veroniki, Lehana Thabane, Vânia dos Santos Nunes Nogueira

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityImpactSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São PauloEuropean Commission
KeywordsMedicineProtocol (science)Meta-analysisPrimary careAlternative medicineMEDLINESystematic reviewBioinformaticsIntensive care medicineFamily medicineInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Despite the increasing number of drugs and various guidelines on the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), several patients continue with the disease uncontrolled. There are several non-pharmacological treatments available for managing T2DM, but various of them have never been compared directly to determine the best strategies. OBJECTIVE: This study will evaluate the comparative effects of non-pharmacological strategies in the management of T2DM in primary care or community settings. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA), and will include randomised controlled trials if one of the following interventions were applied in adult patients with T2DM: nutritional therapy, physical activity, psychological interventions, social interventions, multidisciplinary lifestyle interventions, diabetes self-management education and support (DSMES), technology-enabled DSMES, interventions delivered only either by pharmacists or by nurses, self-blood glucose monitoring in non-insulin-treated T2DM, health coaching, benchmarking and usual care. The primary outcome will be glycaemic control (glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) (%)), and the secondary outcomes will be weight loss, quality of life, patient satisfaction, frequency of cardiovascular events and deaths, number of patients in each group with HbA1c <7, adverse events and medication adherence. We have developed search strategies for Embase, Medline, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Trip database, Scopus, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature Australasian Medical Index and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database. Four reviewers will assess the studies for their eligibility and their risk of bias in pairs and independently. An NMA will be performed using a Bayesian hierarchical model, and the treatment hierarchy will be obtained using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve. To determine our confidence in an overall treatment ranking from the NMA, we will follow the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As no primary data collection will be undertaken, no formal ethical assessment is required. We plan to present the results of this systematic review in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, conferences and the popular press. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019127856.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.475
Threshold uncertainty score0.850

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.143
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.316 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations44
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsFrench-language works237,207