Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 180

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Behavioral Programs for Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Pillay, Jennifer, Armstrong, Marni J., Butalia, Sonia, Donovan, Lois E., Sigal, Ronald J., Chordiya, Pritam, Dhakal, Sanjaya, Vandermeer, Ben, Hartling, Lisa, Nuspl, Megan, Featherstone, Robin, Dryden, Donna M.·2015·Annals of Internal Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Whether behavioral approaches for self-management programs benefit individuals with type 1 diabetes mellitus is unclear. PURPOSE: To determine the effects of behavioral programs for patients with type 1 diabetes on behavioral, clinical, and health outcomes and to investigate factors that might moderate effect. DATA SOURCES: 6 electronic databases (1993 to June 2015), trial registries and conference proceedings (2011 to 2014), and reference lists. STUDY SELECTION: 36 prospective, controlled studies involving participants of any age group that compared behavioral programs with usual care, active controls, or other programs. DATA EXTRACTION: One reviewer extracted and another verified data. Two reviewers assessed quality and strength of evidence (SOE). DATA SYNTHESIS: Moderate SOE showed reduction in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) at 6 months after the intervention compared with usual care (mean difference, -0.29 [95% CI, -0.45 to -0.13] percentage points) and compared with active controls (-0.44 [CI, -0.69 to -0.19] percentage points). At the end of the intervention and 12-month follow-up or longer, there were no statistically significant differences in HbA1c (low SOE) for comparisons with usual care or active control. Compared with usual care, generic quality of life at program completion did not differ (moderate SOE). Other outcomes had low or insufficient SOE. Adults appeared to benefit more for glycemic control at program completion (-0.28 [CI, -0.57 to 0.01] percentage points) than did youth (-0.12 [CI, -0.43 to 0.19] percentage points). Program intensity appeared not to influence effectiveness; some individual delivery appears beneficial. LIMITATIONS: All studies had medium or high risk of bias. There was scarce evidence for many outcomes. CONCLUSION: Behavioral programs for type 1 diabetes offer some benefit for glycemic control, at least at short-term follow-up, but improvement for other outcomes has not been shown. (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42014010515). PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (PROSPERD registration number: CRD42014010515).

Overview

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 · 10.7326/m15-1399

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 42 references

Cited by

See all 180

Metadata

Authors
Pillay, J., Armstrong, M. J., Butalia, S., Donovan, L. E., Sigal, R. J., Chordiya, P., Dhakal, S., Vandermeer, B., Hartling, L., Nuspl, M., Featherstone, R., & Dryden, D. M.
Venue
Annals of Internal Medicine
Published
2015-12-01
Volume
163
Issue
11
Pages
836-847
ISSN
  • 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
  • 1539-3704
OpenAlex
W2183117831
Cited by
180
References
42
FWCI
17.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Behavioral Programs for Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.7326/m15-1399
The paper
Pillay, J., Armstrong, M. J., Butalia, S., Donovan, L. E., Sigal, R. J., Chordiya, P., Dhakal, S., Vandermeer, B., Hartling, L., Nuspl, M., Featherstone, R., & Dryden, D. M. (2015). Behavioral Programs for Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Annals of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.7326/m15-1399

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.