Cited by 78Diabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes Management and EducationDiabetes Treatment and Management

Effectiveness of advanced carbohydrate counting in type 1 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Fu, Shimin, Li, Linjun, Deng, Shuhua, Zan, Liping, Liu, Zhiping·2016·Scientific Reports

Abstract

Potential benefits of carbohydrate counting for glycemic control in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) remain inconclusive. Our aim is to systematically assess the efficacy of carbohydrate counting in patients with T1DM. We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and the Chinese Biology Medicine (CBM) up to December 2015. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with at least 3 months follow-up that evaluated carbohydrate counting compared with usual or other diabetes dietary education in patients with T1DM were included. Overall meta-analysis identified a significant decrease in HbA 1c concentration with carbohydrate counting versus other diabetes diet method or usual diabetes dietary education (SMD: −0.35, 95%CI: −0.65 to −0.05, P = 0.023). Subgroup analysis restricted to trials which compared carbohydrate counting with usual diabetes dietary found a significant decrease in HbA 1c in carbohydrate counting group (SMD: −0.68, 95%CI: −0.98 to −0.38, P = 0.000), and a similar result has emerged from six studies in adults (SMD: −0.40, 95%CI: −0.78 to −0.02, P = 0.037). Carbohydrate counting may confer positive impact on glucose control. Larger clinical trials are warranted to validate this positive impact.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/srep37067

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Combination therapy of a GLP-1 receptor agonist with an SU or insulin is associated with an increased risk of hypoglycemia.

    “While these agents have also been shown to exert their glucose‐lowering effect in combination with an SU or insulin, this combination therapy is shown to be associated with an increased risk of hypoglycemia, suggesting the rationale for reducing the dose of either partnering agent 23 , 24 .”

    From Japanese clinical practice guideline for diabetes 2019 (2020) · cites this paper as [23]

  • DPP-4 inhibitors are not associated with an increased risk of macroangiopathy.

    “They are not associated with an increased risk of macroangiopathy 21 , 22 , 23 .”

    From Japanese clinical practice guideline for diabetes 2019 (2020) · cites this paper as [23]

  • Intervention addressing both depressive symptoms and diabetes-related mental distress and anxiety improves self-care abilities and glycemic control in affected patients.

    “Intervention that addresses both depressive symptoms and diabetes‐related mental distress and anxiety is required to improve the self‐care abilities and glycemic control of affected patients 23 .”

    From Japanese clinical practice guideline for diabetes 2019 (2020) · cites this paper as [23]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 28 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. de Albuquerque I. Z.. Carbohydrate counting, nutritional status and metabolic profile of adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Scientia Medica 24(4), 21 (2014).
  2. Bell K. J., Barclay A. W., Petocz P., Colagiuri S. & Brand-Miller J. C. Efficacy of carbohydrate counting in type 1 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2(2), 133– 140 (2014). 24622717

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fu, S., Li, L., Deng, S., Zan, L., & Liu, Z.
Affiliations
The Affiliated Yongchuan Hospital of Chongqing Medical University (CN)
Venue
Scientific Reports
Published
2016-11-14
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
37067-37067
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2556507797
Cited by
78
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 1
FWCI
0.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Chongqing University
  • Chongqing Medical University
  • National Key Clinical Specialty Discipline Construction Program of China
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
Keywords
carbohydrate counting, type 1 diabetes, glycemic control, HbA1c, dietary management
MeSH terms
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Female, Humans, Male, Patient Education as Topic, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Diet, Carbohydrate-Restricted

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review