Association of depression with glycaemic control in people living with diabetes in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Depression has been found to be associated with poor diabetes control, which contributes to diabetes complications. However, the association between depression and glycaemic control remains understudied in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where the greatest burden of uncontrolled diabetes and diabetes complications exists. This meta-analysis examined the association of depression with glycaemic control in adults with diabetes mellitus in LMICs. METHODS: We performed comprehensive searches in PubMed-Medline, Scopus, Web of Science and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases to identify studies that examined the association of depression with glycaemic control. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Pooled effect estimates were expressed as ORs and mean differences (MDs) using random effects meta-analysis. Heterogeneity of effects was tested using Cochran's Q test. RESULTS: : 82%; p<0.001), with difference in effect sizes by depression diagnostic criteria (p<0.001). Age, diabetes duration, marital status and publication year had no effect on the association (all p≥0.096); while inconsistent effects on the association were observed for body mass index, male gender, sample size and region where studies were conducted. Observed publication bias (all p≤0.007 for the Egger's test) was likely spurious. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis found a positive association of depression with poor glycaemic control in adults with diabetes in LMICs. The findings emphasise the importance of incorporating mental healthcare in diabetes management in low-resource settings.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".