2型糖尿病共享决策对血糖控制影响的系统评价数据集

数据集获取（Figshare）

• 源站标题：S1 Dataset -
• DOI：10.1371/journal.pone.0306296.s002
• 发布日期：2024-07-31
• 文件数：1 个
• 文件总体积：13.42 KB
• 源站页面：https://plos.figshare.com/articles/dataset/S1_Dataset_-/26415459

命令行下载

curl -L -o "pone.0306296.s002.xlsx" "https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/48051264"

文件清单

• pone.0306296.s002.xlsx（13.42 KB）

文件总体积 13.42 KB（源站 API 实测）。

数据说明

Background
In diabetes care and management guidelines, shared decision-making (SDM) implementation is explicitly recommended to help patients and health care providers to make informed shared decisions that enable informed choices and the selection of treatments. Despite widespread calls for SDM to be embedded in health care, there is little evidence to support SDM in the management and care of diabetes. It is still not commonly utilized in routine care settings because its effects remain poorly understood. Hence, the current systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of SDM for glycaemic control among type 2 diabetes adult patients.
Methods
Literature sources were searched in MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane library and HINARI bibliographic databases and Google Scholar. When these records were searched and reviewed, the PICO criteria (P: population, I: intervention, C: comparator, and O: outcome) were applied. The extracted data was exported to RevMan software version 5.4 and STATA 17 for further analysis. The mean differences (MD) of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) were pooled using a random effect model (REM), and sub-group analysis were performed to evaluate the effect size differences across the duration of the follow-up period, modes of intervention, and baseline glycated hemoglobin level of patient groups. The sensitivity analysis was performed using a leave-one-out meta-analysis to quantify the impact of each study on the overall effect size in mean difference HbA1c%. Finally, the statistically significant MD of HbA1c% between the intervention groups engaged in SDM and control groups received usual care was declared at P ˂0.05, using a 95% confidence interval (CI).
Results
In the database search, 425 records were retrieved, with only 17 RCT studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. A total of 5416 subjects were included, out of which 2782(51.4%) were included in trial arms receiving SDM and 2634(48.6%) were included in usual diabetes care. The Higgins (I2) test statistics were calculated to be 59.1%, P = 0.002, indicating statistically significant heterogeneity was observed among the included stud

许可

CC BY 4.0

引用

学术使用请引用 DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0306296.s002（source: https://plos.figshare.com/articles/dataset/S1_Dataset_-/26415459）。