Article

Self-monitoring in Type 2 diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis

Department of Public Health Sciences, Guy's, King's and St. Thomas' School of Medicine, King's College London, UK.
Diabetic Medicine (Impact Factor: 3.06). 12/2000; 17(11):755-61. DOI: 10.1046/j.1464-5491.2000.00390.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Self-monitoring of blood or urine glucose is widely used by subjects with Type 2 diabetes mellitus. This study evaluated the effectiveness of the technique at improving blood glucose control through a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Randomized controlled trials were identified that compared the effects of blood or urine glucose monitoring with no self-monitoring, or blood glucose self-monitoring with urine glucose self-monitoring, on glycated haemoglobin as primary outcome in Type 2 diabetes.
Eight reports were identified. These were rated for quality and data were abstracted. The mean (SD) quality score was 15.0 (1.69) on a scale ranging from 0 to 28. No study had sufficient power to detect differences in glycated haemoglobin (GHb) of less than 0.5%. One study was excluded because it was a cluster randomized trial of a complex intervention and one because fructosamine was used as the outcome measure. A meta-analysis was performed using data from four studies that compared blood or urine monitoring with no regular monitoring. The estimated reduction in GHb from monitoring was -0.25% (95% confidence interval -0.61 to 0.10%). Three studies that compared blood glucose monitoring with urine glucose monitoring were also combined. The estimated reduction in GHb from monitoring blood glucose rather than urine glucose was -0.03% (-0.52 to 0.47%).
The results do not provide evidence for clinical effectiveness of an item of care with appreciable costs. Further work is needed to evaluate self-monitoring so that resources for diabetes care can be used more efficiently.

0 Followers
 · 
90 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Multi-tiered system of supports represents one of the most significant advancements in improving the outcomes of students for whom typical instruction is not effective. While many practices need to be in place to make multi-tiered systems of support effective, accurate implementation of evidence-based practices by individuals at all tiers is critical to obtain student outcomes. Effective strategies to achieve program fidelity are available; however, maintaining program fidelity at the individual level remains elusive. Lessons drawn from medicine indicate strategies to maintain program fidelity should address the implementer. Medical practitioners have used self-monitoring checklists to maintain fidelity with striking results. Research evaluating strategies to maintain program fidelity at the individual level represents an important next step in the field of education. Recommendations for a systematic research agenda focused on self-monitoring checklists are presented.
    Remedial and Special Education 01/2014; 36(1):14-19. DOI:10.1177/0741932514544970 · 0.68 Impact Factor
  • Source
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Multi-tiered system of supports represents one of the most significant advancements in improving the outcomes of students for whom typical instruction is not effective. While many practices need to be in place to make multi-tiered systems of support effective, accurate implementation of evidence-based practices by individuals at all tiers is critical to obtain student outcomes. Effective strategies to achieve program fidelity are available; however, maintaining program fidelity at the individual level remains elusive. Lessons drawn from medicine indicate strategies to maintain program fidelity should address the implementer. Medical practitioners have used self-monitoring checklists to maintain fidelity with striking results. Research evaluating strategies to maintain program fidelity at the individual level represents an important next step in the field of education. Recommendations for a systematic research agenda focused on self-monitoring checklists are presented.
    Remedial and Special Education 01/2015; 36(1):14-19. · 0.68 Impact Factor