RNSystematic ReviewRevista latino-americana de enfermagem2017

Risk factors for unstable blood glucose level: integrative review of the risk factors related to the nursing diagnosis.

Andressa Magalhães Teixeira, Rosangela Tsukamoto, Camila Takáo Lopes and 1 others

PMID 28591300

WHAT IT FOUND

Nurses assessing people with type 2 diabetes should watch for updated risk factors for unstable glucose, including diabetes management, mental status, comorbidities, weight loss, insulin therapy, and exercise.

The review did not test whether this improves outcomes.

Key findings

01The review included 22 primary studies and identified 19 risk factors for unstable blood glucose in people with type 2 diabetes.

02Eleven of the identified risk factors were not in the NANDA-I classification, and correspondences were found with six NANDA-I risk factors.

03The review also linked lower glucose risk to age, longer diabetes duration, insulin therapy, oral antidiabetic agents, macroalbuminuria, inadequate physical activity, and genetic factors.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

The search was limited to 2010 to 2015, to Portuguese, English, and Spanish, and to primary studies, so relevant newer or other-language evidence may be missing. Gray literature was not included, so unpublished studies were not reviewed. The included studies were too heterogeneous to combine statistically, so no meta-analysis was done. The link between African-American ethnicity and hypoglycemia came from one study, so it should be read cautiously. The review did not test whether using these risk factors improves patient outcomes.

The easy way to misread this

Do not read the list as proof that these factors cause unstable glucose or that nurses can use it to predict outcomes. The evidence came from 22 heterogeneous studies, and the review did not test patient outcomes.

Read it on PubMed →