Cochrane · systematic review · CD011469

Psychological interventions for diabetes‐related distress in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Chew, BH, Vos, RC, Metzendorf, MI, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2017 · Cochrane Library

Metabolic and Endocrine DisordersAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
7
current version
GRADE rated
6
No studies
1
Included studies
NR
No studies 1 · 14.3%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 0 · 0%Low 6 · 85.7%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.

Questions and results

Psychological interventions versus usual care for diabetes‐related distress in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus

7 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Diabetes‐related distress PAID and DDS scales
Psychological interventions vs usual care
no estimate extracted12 studies · 3315 participantsLow
Downgraded: risk of bias
Health‐related quality of life Various questionnaires
Psychological interventions vs usual care
no estimate extracted5 studies · 1932 participantsLow
Downgraded: risk of bias
Adverse events Self‐reported outcomes
Psychological interventions vs usual care
RR 2.4 [0.78, 7.39]3 studies · 438 participantsLow
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision
Self‐efficacy Various questionnaires
Psychological interventions vs usual care
no estimate extracted6 studies · 2675 participantsLow
Downgraded: risk of bias
HbA1c (%)
Psychological interventions vs usual care
no estimate extracted11 studies · 3165 participantsLow
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision
Diabetes‐related complications
Psychological interventions vs usual care
no estimate extractedNRNo studies
All‐cause mortality Medical records or reported by family members
Psychological interventions vs usual care
RR 1.01 [0.17, 6.03]3 studies · 1376 participantsLow
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision