Comment on ‘Risk Predictors of Glycaemic Control in Children and Adolescents With Type 1 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis’

荟萃分析 医学 2型糖尿病 梅德林 1型糖尿病 糖尿病 心理学 内科学 内分泌学 政治学 法学
作者
Yang Zhang,M Y Shen,Liqiang Zhang,F Z Wang
出处
期刊:Journal of Clinical Nursing [Wiley]
标识
DOI:10.1111/jocn.17551
摘要

The incidence of diabetes mellitus (especially type 1 diabetes mellitus, T1DM) continues to rise in children and adolescents, making it a global public health challenge. Early onset of T1DM and chronic high blood glucose levels can lead to multiple organ damage and serious complications such as diabetic nephropathy and retinopathy. Although effective glycaemic control has been shown to reduce the risk of these complications, glycaemic control in children and adolescents is currently suboptimal (Habteyohans et al. 2023). Many studies have examined the risk factors that influence glycaemic control (Alassaf et al. 2022); however, the results of existing studies are often inconsistent due to differences in region, study size and study design. Therefore, it is important to systematically evaluate these risk factors to inform the development of interventions. A recent systematic review published in the Journal of Clinical Nursing provided a comprehensive examination of risk predictors of glycaemic control in children and adolescents with T1DM (Gangqiang, Hua, and Hongyu 2024). Although this study provides valuable insights into the factors that influence glycaemic control, a number of methodological and interpretive limitations may affect the strength and generalizability of its findings. First, the authors chose the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale to assess the quality of the included studies. However, this tool has limited control over selection bias, particularly with respect to the diversity and representativeness of the included population. Meanwhile, the scale has only one item to assess whether studies adequately control for confounders and does not explicitly require or refine control for specific confounders. In addition, different raters may interpret the 'comparability' item differently, which may lead to less consistent scoring. Therefore, we recommend the use of more disaggregated scoring systems, such as the Downs and Black tool, to assess the methodological quality of nonrandomised trials (Downs and Black 1998). Second, the pooled results in this paper are highly heterogeneous due to the variability between studies and the high risk of bias in some of the included studies. Although the authors explain some of the possible sources of heterogeneity at the end, the conclusions drawn from the highly heterogeneous results may still be difficult to convince the general reader. Although some of the pooled results in the paper show positive results, the random effects model they use relies on the number of instantaneous estimates to represent the degree of deviation between the true values of the study to obtain conservative pooled results (Stang 2010). Therefore, we suggest replacing the random effects model with a model more appropriate for highly heterogeneous results—the inverse variance heterogeneity model—to validate the true effect sizes. Third, the study failed to provide an assessment of the level of evidence for the outcome indicators, which is a significant shortcoming. Although the study analysed several important outcome indicators, such as glycated haemoglobin levels, hypoglycaemic events and diabetic ketoacidosis, it failed to provide a hierarchical assessment of the strength of evidence for these outcomes. This lack of hierarchical classification of evidence may make it impossible for readers to accurately assess the credibility of the conclusions, which in turn affects the reliability of the clinical application. For clinicians whose decisions are based on high-quality evidence, this deficiency may result in some conclusions based on weak evidence being inappropriately applied to actual treatment. Despite these shortcomings, the authors provide a comprehensive summary and analysis of the existing literature through a systematic review approach, especially in the Chinese child and adolescent T1DM population, making the findings more regionally representative. The study not only validated the internationally known influences on glycaemic control but also highlighted many specific risk factors associated with glycaemic management, such as family structure and economic status. Meanwhile, the study calls for more high-quality randomised controlled trials targeting these risk factors in future, as well as the optimization of existing intervention models to provide more precise and robust evidence to support clinical practice. The authors have nothing to report. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The data sets used and/or analysed during this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
最长约 10秒,即可获得该文献文件

科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI
更新
PDF的下载单位、IP信息已删除 (2025-6-4)

科研通是完全免费的文献互助平台,具备全网最快的应助速度,最高的求助完成率。 对每一个文献求助,科研通都将尽心尽力,给求助人一个满意的交代。
实时播报
韩麒嘉完成签到 ,获得积分10
刚刚
聪慧的凝海完成签到 ,获得积分0
9秒前
9秒前
wwb发布了新的文献求助10
12秒前
phil完成签到 ,获得积分10
12秒前
20秒前
高高菠萝完成签到 ,获得积分10
20秒前
滴滴滴完成签到 ,获得积分10
20秒前
yangsi完成签到 ,获得积分10
23秒前
量子星尘发布了新的文献求助10
24秒前
27秒前
酷炫葵阴发布了新的文献求助10
32秒前
ORANGE完成签到,获得积分10
34秒前
思源应助松松采纳,获得20
38秒前
共享精神应助酷炫葵阴采纳,获得10
40秒前
丝丢皮得完成签到 ,获得积分10
41秒前
42秒前
xfy完成签到,获得积分10
46秒前
阳炎完成签到,获得积分10
48秒前
行云流水完成签到,获得积分10
49秒前
50秒前
冷酷尔琴发布了新的文献求助10
54秒前
青水完成签到 ,获得积分10
58秒前
量子星尘发布了新的文献求助10
58秒前
58秒前
冷酷尔琴完成签到,获得积分10
58秒前
onevip完成签到,获得积分0
1分钟前
小莫完成签到 ,获得积分10
1分钟前
1分钟前
theseus完成签到,获得积分10
1分钟前
胡楠完成签到,获得积分10
1分钟前
北国雪未消完成签到 ,获得积分10
1分钟前
李振博完成签到 ,获得积分10
1分钟前
1分钟前
雪妮完成签到 ,获得积分10
1分钟前
松松发布了新的文献求助20
1分钟前
1分钟前
iwsaml完成签到 ,获得积分10
1分钟前
Caden完成签到 ,获得积分10
1分钟前
xmhxpz完成签到,获得积分10
1分钟前
高分求助中
【提示信息,请勿应助】关于scihub 10000
Les Mantodea de Guyane: Insecta, Polyneoptera [The Mantids of French Guiana] 3000
徐淮辽南地区新元古代叠层石及生物地层 3000
The Mother of All Tableaux: Order, Equivalence, and Geometry in the Large-scale Structure of Optimality Theory 3000
Handbook of Industrial Diamonds.Vol2 1100
Global Eyelash Assessment scale (GEA) 1000
Picture Books with Same-sex Parented Families: Unintentional Censorship 550
热门求助领域 (近24小时)
化学 材料科学 医学 生物 工程类 有机化学 生物化学 物理 内科学 纳米技术 计算机科学 化学工程 复合材料 遗传学 基因 物理化学 催化作用 冶金 细胞生物学 免疫学
热门帖子
关注 科研通微信公众号,转发送积分 4038029
求助须知:如何正确求助?哪些是违规求助? 3575740
关于积分的说明 11373751
捐赠科研通 3305559
什么是DOI,文献DOI怎么找? 1819224
邀请新用户注册赠送积分活动 892652
科研通“疑难数据库(出版商)”最低求助积分说明 815022