MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308658950 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-060786

Indicators of optimal diabetes care and burden of diabetes complications in Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2022· review· en· W4308658950 on OpenAlexaff
Davis Kibirige, Nyasatu G. Chamba, Irene Andia Biraro, Kajiru Kilonzo, Sweetness Naftal Laizer, Isaac Sekitoleko, Andrew Peter Kyazze, Sandra Ninsiima, Phillip Ssekamatte, Felix Bongomin, Lucy Elauteri Mrema, Willyhelmina Olomi, Theodora Mbunda, Nyanda Elias Ntinginya, Issa Sabi, Katrina Sharples, Philip C. Hill, Lindsey te Brake, Josephine VandeMaat, Reinout vanCrevel, Julia Critchley

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Canadian institutionsPopulation Health Research Institute
FundersEuropean and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership
KeywordsMedicineDiabetes mellitusNephropathyMeta-analysisType 2 diabetesRetinopathyInternal medicineCochrane LibraryPeripheral neuropathyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective Contemporary data on the attainment of optimal diabetes treatment goals and the burden of diabetes complications in adult populations with type 2 diabetes in Africa are lacking. We aimed to document the current status of attainment of three key indicators of optimal diabetes care and the prevalence of five diabetes complications in adult African populations with type 2 diabetes. Methods We systematically searched Embase, PubMed and the Cochrane library for published studies from January 2000 to December 2020. Included studies reported any information on the proportion of attainment of optimal glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), blood pressure (BP) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDLC) goals and/or prevalence of five diabetes complications (diabetic peripheral neuropathy, retinopathy, nephropathy, foot ulcers and peripheral arterial disease). Random effect model meta-analysis was performed to determine the pooled proportion of attainment of the three treatment goals and the prevalence of five diabetes complications. Results In total, 109 studies with a total of 63 890 participants (53.3% being females) were included in the meta-analysis. Most of the studies were conducted in Eastern African countries (n=44, 40.4%). The pooled proportion of attainment of an optimal HbA1c, BP and LDLC goal was 27% (95% CI 24 to 30, I2=94.7%), 38% (95% CI 30 to 46, I2=98.7%) and 42% (95% CI 32 to 52, I2=97.4%), respectively. The pooled prevalence of diabetic peripheral neuropathy, retinopathy, diabetic nephropathy, peripheral arterial disease and foot ulcers was 38% (95% CI 31 to 45, I2=98.2%), 32% (95% CI 28 to 36, I2=98%), 31% (95% CI 22 to 41, I2=99.3%), 19% (95% CI 12 to 25, I2=98.1%) and 11% (95% CI 9 to 14, I2=97.4%), respectively. Conclusion Attainment of optimal diabetes treatment goals, especially HbA1c, in adult patients with type 2 diabetes in Africa remains a challenge. Diabetes complications, especially diabetic peripheral neuropathy and retinopathy, are highly prevalent in adult populations with type 2 diabetes in Africa.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.125

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0280.051
Bibliometrics0.0110.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.130
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations23
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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