Cited by 30Diabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes Management and EducationDiabetes Treatment and Management

The value of episodic, intensive blood glucose monitoring in non-insulin treated persons with type 2 diabetes: design of the Structured Testing Program (STeP) study, a cluster-randomised, clinical trial [NCT00674986]

Open access
Polonsky, William, Fisher, Lawrence, Schikman, Charles, Hinnen, Deborah, Parkin, Christopher, Jelsovsky, Zhihong, Amstutz, Linda, Schweitzer, Matthias +1 more·2010·BMC Family Practice

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The value and utility of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in non-insulin treated T2DM has yet to be clearly determined. Findings from studies in this population have been inconsistent, due mainly to design differences and limitations, including the prescribed frequency and timing of SMBG, role of the patient and physician in responding to SMBG results, inclusion criteria that may contribute to untoward floor effects, subject compliance, and cross-arm contamination. We have designed an SMBG intervention study that attempts to address these issues. METHODS/DESIGN: The Structured Testing Program (STeP) study is a 12-month, cluster-randomised, multi-centre clinical trial to evaluate whether poorly controlled (HbA1c >or= 7.5%), non-insulin treated T2DM patients will benefit from a comprehensive, integrated physician/patient intervention using structured SMBG in US primary care practices. Thirty-four practices will be recruited and randomly assigned to an active control group (ACG) that receives enhanced usual care or to an enhanced usual care group plus structured SMBG (STG). A total of 504 patients will be enrolled; eligible patients at each site will be randomly selected using a defined protocol. Anticipated attrition of 20% will yield a sample size of at least 204 per arm, which will provide a 90% power to detect a difference of at least 0.5% in change from baseline in HbA1c values, assuming a common standard deviation of 1.5%. Differences in timing and degree of treatment intensification, cost effectiveness, and changes in patient self-management behaviours, mood, and quality of life (QOL) over time will also be assessed. Analysis of change in HbA1c and other dependent variables over time will be performed using both intent-to-treat and per protocol analyses. Trial results will be available in 2010. DISCUSSION: The intervention and trial design builds upon previous research by emphasizing appropriate and collaborative use of SMBG by both patients and physicians. Utilization of per protocol and intent-to-treat analyses facilitates a comprehensive assessment of the intervention. Use of practice site cluster-randomisation reduces the potential for intervention contamination, and inclusion criteria (HbA1c >or= 7.5%) reduces the possibility of floor effects. Inclusion of multiple dependent variables allows us to assess the broader impact of the intervention, including changes in patient and physician attitudes and behaviours. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials NCT00674986.

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 · 10.1186/1471-2296-11-37

Cites

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?

  • Inconsistent findings in studies of insulin-naïve type 2 diabetic patients may be due in part to differences in subject selection criteria, critical content differences in the SMBG intervention, fidelity of treatment delivery, and/or intervention adherence.

    “Inconsistent findings seen in studies of insulin-naïve type 2 diabetic patients may be due, in part, to differences in key design issues, such as subject selection criteria (e.g., whether or not patients had poor glycemic control at study entry), critical content differences in the actual SMBG intervention (e.g., whether physicians were privy to patient SMBG data), fidelity of treatment delivery (”

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 45 · Cited by 30

Authors
Polonsky, W., Fisher, L., Schikman, C., Hinnen, D., Parkin, C., Jelsovsky, Z., Amstutz, L., Schweitzer, M., & Wagner, R.
Affiliations
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • Endeavor Health (US)
Corresponding author
Parkin, Christopher
Venue
BMC Family Practice
Published
2010-05-18
Volume
11
Issue
1
Pages
37-37
ISSN
1471-2296 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2166949123
Cited by
30
References
45
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 6
FWCI
4.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Family Practice (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
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
self-monitoring of blood glucose, type 2 diabetes, non-insulin-treated diabetes, HbA1c, glycemic control, primary care, floor effect, patient self-management, quality of life, cost-effectiveness, treatment intensification
MeSH terms
Attitude to Health, Blood Glucose, Clinical Protocols, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Hypoglycemic Agents, Insulin, Longitudinal Studies, Primary Health Care, Surveys and Questionnaires, Research Design, Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring, Cluster Analysis, Endpoint Determination

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