C
With the present findings it can be concluded that self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes patients who are not using insulin is beneficial in lowering HbA1c. However, when diabetes duration is over one year, the overall glycaemic effects of SMBG are small at short-term and subside after one year. Despite possible glycaemic benefits we conclude that SMBG has no relevant effect on general well-being and health-related quality of life.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... .pub3/fullQualitative research (Farmer 2009; Peel 2007) suggests that SMBG and its feedback can be important factors for individual patients to improve medication adherence, empower the patient to gain control over their disease or to motivate 'lifestyle' changes. Future studies should investigate whether SMBG attributes to other parts of self-management. In addition, SMBG postulated positive changes in diabetic complications should be investigated as well. Furthermore, more research is needed to explore the psychological impact of SMBG and its accompanying demands on diabetes specific quality of life and well-being
Pulce said:The Cochrane review looked at 12 randomised controlled trials including 3,259 patients with diabetes not using insulin who self-monitored their blood glucose.
They found only a small statistically significant decrease in HbA1c at six month follow-up - of 0.3% - compared to control groups of patients who did not monitor at all. By 12-months, there was no significant decrease (0.1%)
Sid Bonkers said:I dont quite understand the study or rather the way it has been set up.
Pulce said:The Cochrane review looked at 12 randomised controlled trials including 3,259 patients with diabetes not using insulin who self-monitored their blood glucose.
They found only a small statistically significant decrease in HbA1c at six month follow-up - of 0.3% - compared to control groups of patients who did not monitor at all. By 12-months, there was no significant decrease (0.1%)
Say I had been a test subject or any other well controlled diabetic for that matter, over the course of 12 months I would show no improvement whatsoever as my HbA1c's are always in the 5%'s (fingers crossed). If they had taken their test subjects from out of control diabetics and educated them in diet and carb control and using their meters to achieve better control the results would have been quite different.
So just like all statistics they found the answer they were looking for, no surprises then :roll: :evil:
There were 12 very different studies included and they had subjects with average HbA1cs varying from 6.7% -11.7%
It would be interesting but it is anecdote. It wouldn't appear in a Cochrane review, it wouldn't have much influence as evidence. The most reliable type of evidence is considered to come from randomised controlled trials.viviennem said:Phoenix posted:
There were 12 very different studies included and they had subjects with average HbA1cs varying from 6.7% -11.7%
I wonder what would happen if they did a study on people with average HbA1Cs in the 5s and asked them how they did it, and what role self-testing played in their control?
I once volunteered for a study in this region and was turned down because my HbA1C was too low!
I would have liked to post a comment on the original link site, but didn't want to join. It would be good to refer them to this forum.
Viv 8)
phoenix said:sorry Sid, I don't see that your objection holds, It could perhaps be levelled at the Duran study (average 6.7%) but this was one of those with positive findings" http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 081.x/full
There were 12 very different studies included and they had subjects with average HbA1cs varying from 6.7% -11.7%
viviennem said:Phoenix posted:
There were 12 very different studies included and they had subjects with average HbA1cs varying from 6.7% -11.7%
I wonder what would happen if they did a study on people with average HbA1Cs in the 5s and asked them how they did it, and what role self-testing played in their control?
I once volunteered for a study in this region and was turned down because my HbA1C was too low!
I would have liked to post a comment on the original link site, but didn't want to join. It would be good to refer them to this forum.
Viv 8)
Pneu said:I also have to agree with Sid... what these studies seem to do is to take a range of people with moderate to poor control (HbA1c's of 6.7% - 11.7%) and look so see if what they are doing works... what are they expecting the results to be? Clearly the people with moderate control are doing some things that work and those with poor control aren't?!
Surely the best way is as Sid suggests.. you look at the sample of people that are maintaining good control and establish the what commonalities are?
If you wanted to build a really strong building you wouldn't start by looking at buildings that fell over regularly?! you would look at other strong buildings and work out what made them strong?
However, when diabetes duration is over one year, the overall glycaemic effects of SMBG are small at short-term and subside after one year. Despite possible glycaemic benefits we conclude that SMBG has no relevant effect on general well-being and health-related quality of life.
general well-being and health-related quality of life.
catherinecherub said:Yet another review to say there is no good evidence for self monitoring in non insulin diabetics.
These sorts of articles are what makes up the minds of our providers. Keep an eye on the article and see how many comments from G.P.'s are in our favour. :roll: :crazy:
I think they are getting their stats from non compliant patients. We are in the minority in proving that this is not so.
http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/newsarticle ... n-diabetes
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?