Dataset Information

Psychological interventions to improve glycaemic control in patients with type 1 diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To determine whether psychological interventions have any effect on glycaemic control in people with type 1 diabetes.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis of psychological therapies to assess their effectiveness in improving glycaemic control in type 1 diabetes.

Data sources

Medline, PsycINFO, Embase, and Cochrane central register of controlled trials searched to September 2004.

Review methods

All included studies were randomised controlled trials in children (including adolescents) or adults with type 1 diabetes that evaluated the effect of a psychological therapy (counselling, cognitive behaviour therapy, family systems therapy, and psychodynamic therapy) on control of diabetes. Data were extracted on sample size, age, duration of diabetes, type of psychological therapy, its mode of delivery, and type of intervention in control group.

Main outcome measures

Glycaemic control measured by percentage of glycated haemoglobin and psychological distress. Pooled standardised effect sizes were calculated.

Results

29 trials were eligible for the systematic review and 21 trials for the meta-analysis. In the 10 studies of children and adolescents included in the meta-analysis, the mean percentage of glycated haemoglobin was significantly reduced in those who had received a psychological intervention compared with those in the control group (pooled standardised mean difference -0.35 (95% confidence interval -0.66 to -0.04), equivalent to a 0.48% (0.05% to 0.91%) absolute reduction in glycated haemoglobin. In the 11 studies in adults the pooled standardised mean difference was -0.17 (-0.45 to 0.10), equivalent to 0.22% (-0.13% to 0.56%) absolute reduction in glycated haemoglobin. Psychological distress was significantly lower in the intervention groups in children and adolescents (pooled standardised effect size -0.46, -0.83 to -0.10) but not in adults (-0.25, -0.51 to 0.01).

Conclusion

Psychological treatments can slightly improve glycaemic control in children and adolescents with diabetes but have no effect in adults.

SUBMITTER: Winkley K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC1489251 | biostudies-literature | 2006 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Psychological interventions to improve glycaemic control in patients with type 1 diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Winkley Kirsty K Ismail Khalida K Landau Sabine S Eisler Ivan I

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20060627 7558

<h4>Objective</h4>To determine whether psychological interventions have any effect on glycaemic control in people with type 1 diabetes.<h4>Design</h4>Systematic review and meta-analysis of psychological therapies to assess their effectiveness in improving glycaemic control in type 1 diabetes.<h4>Data sources</h4>Medline, PsycINFO, Embase, and Cochrane central register of controlled trials searched to September 2004.<h4>Review methods</h4>All included studies were randomised controlled trials in ...[more]

PMID: 16803942

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo inform the update of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes clinical practice guidelines for nutrition therapy.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library searched up to 13 May 2021.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesRandomised controlled trials of three or more weeks investigating the effect of diets with low glycaemic index (GI)/glycaemic load (GL) in diabetes.Outcome and measuresThe primary outcome was glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c). Secondary outcomes included other markers of glycaemic control (fasting glucose, fasting insulin); blood lipids (low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), non-HDL-C, apo B, triglycerides); adiposity (body weight, BMI (body mass index), waist circumference), blood pressure (systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP)), and inflammation (C reactive protein (CRP)).Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Data were pooled by random effects models. GRADE (grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation) was used to assess the certainty of evidence.Results29 trial comparisons were identified in 1617 participants with type 1 and 2 diabetes who were predominantly middle aged, overweight, or obese with moderately controlled type 2 diabetes treated by hyperglycaemia drugs or insulin. Low GI/GL dietary patterns reduced HbA1c in comparison with higher GI/GL control diets (mean difference −0.31% (95% confidence interval −0.42 to −0.19%), P<0.001; substantial heterogeneity, I2=75%, P<0.001). Reductions occurred also in fasting glucose, LDL-C, non-HDL-C, apo B, triglycerides, body weight, BMI, systolic blood pressure (dose-response), and CRP (P<0.05), but not blood insulin, HDL-C, waist circumference, or diastolic blood pressure. A positive dose-response gradient was seen for the difference in GL and HbA1c and for absolute dietary GI and SBP (P<0.05). The certainty of evidence was high for the reduction in HbA1c and moderate for most secondary outcomes, with downgrades due mainly to imprecision.ConclusionsThis synthesis suggests that low GI/GL dietary patterns result in small important improvements in established targets of glycaemic control, blood lipids, adiposity, blood pressure, and inflammation beyond concurrent treatment with hyperglycaemia drugs or insulin, predominantly in adults with moderately controlled type 1 and type 2 diabetes. The available evidence provides a good indication of the likely benefit in this population.Study registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04045938.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:There is rising awareness that we need multidisciplinary approaches integrating psychological treatments for schizophrenia, but a comprehensive evidence based on their relative efficacy is lacking. We will conduct a network meta-analysis (NMA), integrating direct and indirect comparisons from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to rank psychological treatments for schizophrenia according to their efficacy, acceptability and tolerability. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:We will include all RCTs comparing a psychological treatment aimed at positive symptoms of schizophrenia with another psychological intervention or with a no treatment condition (waiting-list and treatment as usual). We will include studies on adult patients with schizophrenia, excluding specific subpopulations (eg, first-episode patients or patients with psychiatric comorbidities). Primary outcome will be the change in positive symptoms on a published rating scale. Secondary outcomes will be acceptability (dropout), change in overall and negative symptoms of schizophrenia, response, relapse, adherence, depression, quality of life, functioning and adverse events. Published and unpublished studies will be sought through database searches, trial registries and websites. Study selection and data extraction will be conducted by at least two independent reviewers. We will conduct random-effects NMA to synthesise all evidences for each outcome and obtain a comprehensive ranking of all treatments. NMA will be conducted in Stata and R within a frequentist framework. The risk of bias in studies will be evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the credibility of the evidence will be evaluated using an adaptation of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework to NMA, recommended by the Cochrane guidance. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses will be conducted to assess the robustness of the findings. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:No ethical issues are foreseen. Results from this study will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42017067795.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Torture and other forms of ill treatment have been reported in at least 141 countries, exposing a global crisis. Survivors face multiple physical, psychological, and social difficulties. Psychological consequences for survivors are varied, and evidence on treatment is mixed. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the benefits and harms of psychological, social, and welfare interventions for torture survivors. METHODS AND FINDINGS:We updated a 2014 review with published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for adult survivors of torture comparing any psychological, social, or welfare intervention against treatment as usual or active control from 1 January 2014 through 22 June 2019. Primary outcome was post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms or caseness, and secondary outcomes were depression symptoms, functioning, quality of life, and adverse effects, after treatment and at follow-up of at least 3 months. Standardised mean differences (SMDs) and odds ratios were estimated using meta-analysis with random effects. The Cochrane tool was used to derive risk of bias. Fifteen RCTs were included, with data from 1,373 participants (589 females and 784 males) in 10 countries (7 trials in Europe, 5 in Asia, and 3 in Africa). No trials of social or welfare interventions were found. Compared to mostly inactive (waiting list) controls, psychological interventions reduced PTSD symptoms by the end of treatment (SMD -0.31, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.52 to -0.09, p = 0.005), but PTSD symptoms at follow-up were not significantly reduced (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.74 to 0.06, p = 0.09). No significant improvement was found for PTSD caseness at the end of treatment, and there was possible worsening at follow-up from one study (n = 28). Interventions showed no benefits for depression symptoms at end of treatment (SMD -0.23, 95% CI -0.50 to 0.03, p = 0.09) or follow-up (SMD -0.23, 95% CI -0.70 to 0.24, p = 0.34). A significant improvement in functioning for psychological interventions compared to control was found at end of treatment (SMD -0.38, 95% CI -0.58 to -0.18, p = 0.0002) but not at follow-up from only one study. No significant improvement emerged for quality of life at end of treatment (SMD 0.38, 95% CI -0.28 to 1.05, p = 0.26) with no data available at follow-up. The main study limitations were the difficulty in this field of being certain of capturing all eligible studies, the lack of modelling of maintenance of treatment gains, and the low precision of most SMDs making findings liable to change with the addition of further studies as they are published. CONCLUSIONS:Our findings show evidence that psychological interventions improve PTSD symptoms and functioning at the end of treatment, but it is unknown whether this is maintained at follow-up, with a possible worsening of PTSD caseness at follow-up from one study. Further interventions in this population should address broader psychological needs beyond PTSD while taking into account the effect of multiple daily stressors. Additional studies, including social and welfare interventions, will improve precision of estimates of effect, particularly over the longer term.

Project description:BackgroundRepeat offending, also known as criminal recidivism, in people released from prison has remained high over many decades. To address this, psychological treatments have been increasingly used in criminal justice settings; however, there is little evidence about their effectiveness. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions in prison to reduce recidivism after release.MethodsFor this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Global Health, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar for articles published from database inception to Feb 17, 2021, without any language restrictions. We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effect of psychological interventions, delivered to adolescents and adults during incarceration, on recidivism outcomes after release. We excluded studies of solely pharmacological interventions and of participants in secure psychiatric hospitals or special residential units, or attending therapies mainly delivered outside of the prison setting. We extracted summary estimates from eligible RCTs. Data were extracted and appraised according to a prespecified protocol, with effect sizes converted to odds ratios. We used a standardised form to extract the effects of interventions on recidivism and estimated risk of bias for each RCT. Planned sensitivity analyses were done by removing studies with fewer than 50 participants. Our primary outcome was recidivism. Data from individual RCTs were combined in a random-effects meta-analysis as pooled odds ratios (ORs) and we explored sources of heterogeneity by comparing effect sizes by study size, control group, and intervention type. The protocol was pre-registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020167228.FindingsOf 6345 articles retrieved, 29 RCTs (9443 participants, 1104 [11·7%] females, 8111 [85·9%] males, and 228 [2·4%] unknown) met the inclusion criteria for the primary outcome. Mean ages were 31·4 years (SD 4·9, range 24·5-41·5) for adult participants and 17·5 years (SD 1·9; range 14·6-20·2) for adolescent participants. Race or ethnicity data were not sufficiently reported to be aggregated. If including all 29 RCTs, psychological interventions were associated with reduced reoffending outcomes (OR 0·72, 95% CI 0·56-0·92). However, after excluding smaller studies (<50 participants in the intervention group), there was no significant reduction in recidivism (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0·68-1·11). Based on two studies, therapeutic communities were associated with decreased rates of recidivism (OR 0·64, 95% CI 0·46-0·91). These risk estimates did not significantly differ by type of control group and other study characteristics.InterpretationWidely implemented psychological interventions for people in prison to reduce offending after release need improvement. Publication bias and small-study effects appear to have overestimated the reported modest effects of such interventions, which were no longer present when only larger studies were included in analyses. Findings suggest that therapeutic communities and interventions that ensure continuity of care in community settings should be prioritised for future research. Developing new treatments should focus on addressing modifiable risk factors for reoffending.FundingWellcome Trust, Fonds de recherche du Québec - Santé.

Project description:IntroductionIn addition to the lipid-lowering effect of bile acid sequestrants (BASs), they also lower blood glucose and, therefore, could be beneficial in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Three oral BASs are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of hypercholesterolaemia: colestipol, cholestyramine and colesevelam. The BAS colestimide/colestilan is used in Japan. Colesevelam was recently approved by the FDA for the treatment of T2DM. We plan to provide a systematic review with meta-analysis of the glucose-lowering effect of BASs with the aim to evaluate their potential as glucose-lowering agents in patients with T2DM.Methods and analysisIn accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses statement, a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials of BASs (vs placebo, oral antidiabetes drugs or insulin), reporting measures of glycaemic control in adult patients with T2DM, will be performed. Change in glycated haemoglobin constitutes the primary endpoint, and secondary endpoints include changes in fasting plasma glucose, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, total cholesterol, triglycerides, body weight and body mass index and adverse events. Electronic searches will be performed in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and EMBASE, along with manual searches in the reference lists of relevant papers. The analyses will be performed based on individual patient data and summarised data. The primary meta-analysis will be performed using random effects models owing to expected intertrial heterogeneity. Dichotomous data will be analysed using risk difference and continuous data using weighted mean differences, both with 95% CIs.Ethics and disseminationThe study will evaluate the potential of BASs as glucose-lowering agents and possibly contribute to the clinical management of patients with T2DM.ResultsThe study will be disseminated by peer-review publication and conference presentation.Protocol registrationPROSPERO CRD42012002552.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the effect of targeting intensive glycaemic control versus conventional glycaemic control on all cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, microvascular complications, and severe hypoglycaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes.DesignSystematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of randomised trials.Data sourcesCochrane Library, Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, LILACS, and CINAHL to December 2010; hand search of reference lists and conference proceedings; contacts with authors, relevant pharmaceutical companies, and the US Food and Drug Administration.Study selectionRandomised clinical trials comparing targeted intensive glycaemic control with conventional glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. Published and unpublished trials in all languages were included, irrespective of predefined outcomes.Data extractionTwo reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion and extracted data related to study methods, interventions, outcomes, risk of bias, and adverse events. Risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals were estimated with fixed and random effects models.ResultsFourteen clinical trials that randomised 28,614 participants with type 2 diabetes (15,269 to intensive control and 13,345 to conventional control) were included. Intensive glycaemic control did not significantly affect the relative risks of all cause (1.02, 95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.13; 28,359 participants, 12 trials) or cardiovascular mortality (1.11, 0.92 to 1.35; 28,359 participants, 12 trials). Trial sequential analyses rejected a relative risk reduction above 10% for all cause mortality and showed insufficient data on cardiovascular mortality. The risk of non-fatal myocardial infarction may be reduced (relative risk 0.85, 0.76 to 0.95; P=0.004; 28,111 participants, 8 trials), but this finding was not confirmed in trial sequential analysis. Intensive glycaemic control showed a reduction of the relative risks for the composite microvascular outcome (0.88, 0.79 to 0.97; P=0.01; 25,600 participants, 3 trials) and retinopathy (0.80, 0.67 to 0.94; P=0.009; 10,793 participants, 7 trials), but trial sequential analyses showed that sufficient evidence had not yet been reached. The estimate of an effect on the risk of nephropathy (relative risk 0.83, 0.64 to 1.06; 27,769 participants, 8 trials) was not statistically significant. The risk of severe hypoglycaemia was significantly increased when intensive glycaemic control was targeted (relative risk 2.39, 1.71 to 3.34; 27,844 participants, 9 trials); trial sequential analysis supported a 30% increased relative risk of severe hypoglycaemia.ConclusionIntensive glycaemic control does not seem to reduce all cause mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes. Data available from randomised clinical trials remain insufficient to prove or refute a relative risk reduction for cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, composite microvascular complications, or retinopathy at a magnitude of 10%. Intensive glycaemic control increases the relative risk of severe hypoglycaemia by 30%.

Dataset Information

Psychological interventions to improve glycaemic control in patients with type 1 diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Objective

Design

Data sources

Review methods

Main outcome measures

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Psychological interventions to improve glycaemic control in patients with type 1 diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure