# Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Nursing Intervention on Children with Type 2 Diabetes

Authors: Liying Tang; Zhen Xu; Ping Yao; Huiqin Zhu
Journal: Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine
 (2022)

---

## Abstract

Objective. To systematically evaluate the effect of nursing intervention on children with type 2 diabetes. Methods. The randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on nursing intervention in children with type 2 diabetes in CNKI, VIP, WanFang, Chinese Biomedical Database (CBM), PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Embase, and Science were searched by the computer until July 2022. Two evaluators reviewed the articles, selected the information, and assessed their quality according to the inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria and then carried out meta-analysis with RevMan 5.3. Results. A total of 5 RCT studies were kept, including 319 patients with type 2 diabetes (≤21 years old), where 162 patients were in the nursing group and 157 patients were in the control group. Meta-analysis revealed that, compared with routine nursing, nursing intervention could effectively control children’s fasting blood glucose (FBG) (MD=−1.68, 95% CI (-2.19, -1.17), P<0.00001), 2 h postprandial blood glucose (2hPG) (MD=−4.01, 95% CI (-4.70, -3.33), P<0.00001), fasting insulin (FINS) (MD=−7.42, 95% CI (-10.63, -4.20), P<0.00001), 2 h postprandial insulin (2hINS) (MD=−58.18, 95% CI (-103.24, -13.11), P=0.01), triglycerides (TG) (MD=−0.41, 95% CI (-0.56, -0.25), P<0.00001), and systolic blood pressure (SBP) (MD=−8.85, 95% CI (-14.67, -3.03), P=0.003) and effectively maintain patients’ blood glucose at a normal level (MD=−8.85, 95% CI (-14.67, -3.03), P=0.003), where all the differences were statistically significant. Conclusion. The existing evidence showed that nursing intervention has a significant effect in controlling normal blood glucose and improving insulin utilization in children with type 2 diabetes, which can effectively improve the therapeutic effect on children.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

Diabetes is a metabolic disease caused by impaired islet function and carbohydrate metabolism disorder. With the characteristics of long course and many complications, it has developed into one of the nine major diseases damaging human health [1, 2]. In 2015, it was reported that 415 million people aged 20-79 have diabetes, which is expected to reach 642 million by 2040 [3, 4]. Globally, the number of diabetes patients has quadrupled in the past few years, and 90% of diabetes patients are type 2 diabetes [5], which is mainly caused by insulin resistance due to various reasons [6]. Due to the change of dietary structure and the reduction of physical activity, obese children are gradually increasing, and the number of children and adolescents with type 2 diabetes is raising year after year [7], although type 1 diabetes is mostly in children. If effective methods are not used for timely treatment, acute complications such as impaired glucose tolerance and other chronic diseases are very likely to occur [8, 9]. Children and adolescent patients with type 2 diabetes need special medical treatment and care, since they are different from adults in many aspects, such as changes in insulin sensitivity, growth and development, self-management ability, and susceptibility to hypoglycemia related to sexual maturity [10–12]. In addition, long-term self-management education, reasonable diet, appropriate physical exercise, psychotherapy, etc. are also needed to prevent and reduce the occurrence of adverse reactions and complications [13, 14].Some studies have pointed out that nursing intervention can effectively control the blood glucose of children with type 2 diabetes and improve their compliance with treatment, so as to delay the progress of the disease and improve patients’ life experience [15–17], but there is still a lack of relevant medical evidence. Therefore, we systematically evaluated the effect of nursing intervention in children with type 2 diabetes by retrieving relevant literature and applying meta-analysis method, so as to provide medical evidence for the clinical promotion and application of nursing intervention.


## 2. Data and Methods

### 2.1. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

#### 2.1.1. Inclusion Criteria

The inclusion criteria are the following: (1) research type: randomized controlled trails (RCT); (2) patient information: children with type 2 diabetes,age≤21 years old; (3) intervention measures: the nursing group was given other nursing interventions based on the routine nursing, and the control group was given routine nursing; (4) outcome indexes: literature with one of the following indicators can be included: fasting blood glucose (FBG, mmol/L), 2 h postprandial blood glucose (2hPG, mmol/L), fasting insulin (FINS, U/L), 2 h postprandial insulin (2hINS, U/L), triglycerides (TG, mmol/L), systolic blood pressure (SBP, mmHg), and total effectiveness of blood glucose control (cases).


#### 2.1.2. Exclusion Criteria

The exclusion criteria are the following: (1) repeatedly published literature and (2) studies with incomplete information and unable to extract effective data.


### 2.2. Literature Retrieval Strategy

The RCTs on nursing intervention in children with type 2 diabetes in CNKI, VIP, WanFang, CBM, PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Embase, and Science were searched by the computer until July 2022. It was supplemented by manual secondary retrieval, so as to ensure the comprehensiveness of literature retrieval. The Chinese search takes “Nursing,” “Child,” and “diabetes mellitus, type 2” as the subject words for combined hybrid search. Taking WanFang database as an example, the search formula is as follows: (nursing OR intervention) AND (child OR teenagers OR children) and diabetes mellitus, type 2. English retrieval takes “nursing”, “child”, “diabetes mellitus, type 2,” “randomized controlled trial” as the subject word for combinatorial hybrid retrieval. Taking PubMed as an example, the formula is as follows: (((((((((“Nursing”[Mesh])) OR (Nurse[Title/Abstract])) OR (Care[Title/Abstract])) OR (Caring[Title/Abstract])) OR (Intervention[Title/Abstract])) OR (Intervene[Title/Abstract])) AND (((((((“Child”[Mesh])) OR (Children[Title/Abstract])) OR (preschool[Title/Abstract])) OR (young[Title/Abstract])) OR (youngsters[Title/Abstract])) OR (teenagers[Title/Abstract]))) AND ((((((((((((((((((((((“Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2”[Mesh]) OR (Diabetes Mellitus, Noninsulin-Dependent[Title/Abstract])) OR (Diabetes Mellitus, Ketosis-Resistant[Title/Abstract])) OR (Diabetes Mellitus, Ketosis Resistant[Title/Abstract])) OR (Ketosis-Resistant Diabetes Mellitus[Title/Abstract])) OR (Diabetes Mellitus, Non Insulin Dependent[Title/Abstract])) OR (Diabetes Mellitus, Non-Insulin-Dependent[Title/Abstract])) OR (Non-Insulin-Dependent Diabetes Mellitus[Title/Abstract])) OR (Diabetes Mellitus, Stable[Title/Abstract])) OR (Stable Diabetes Mellitus[Title/Abstract])) OR (Diabetes Mellitus, Type II[Title/Abstract])) OR (NIDDM[Title/Abstract])) OR (Diabetes Mellitus, Noninsulin Dependent[Title/Abstract])) OR (Diabetes Mellitus, Maturity-Onset[Title/Abstract])) OR (Maturity Onset Diabetes Mellitus[Title/Abstract])) OR (MODY[Title/Abstract])) OR (Diabetes Mellitus, Slow Onset[Title/Abstract])) OR (Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus[Title/Abstract])) OR (Noninsulin Dependent Diabetes Mellitus[Title/Abstract])) OR (Maturity Onset Diabetes[Title/Abstract])) OR (Type 2 Diabetes[Title/Abstract])) OR (Diabetes, Type 2[Title/Abstract]))) AND (“Randomized Controlled Trial” [Publication Type]).


### 2.3. Data and Relevant Information Extraction

Using an independent double-blind method, two researchers read the topics and abstracts for preliminary screening and then read the full text for rescreening. Extract data from the final included literature, cross-check it, and deliver the divergence to the third researcher to decide whether to include it after verification. The extracted information includes (1) the first author and the year of publication; (2) study design, patients number, age, and gender; (3) intervention measures, intervention time, and intervention cycle; and (4) outcome measures: FBG, 2hPG, FINS, 2hINS, TG, SBP, and total effectiveness of blood glucose control.


### 2.4. Study Quality Evaluation

The quality of the analyses is influenced by the bias risk of the included studies. In this study, two researchers evaluated the quality of articles using the bias risk assessment tool in RevMan 5.3. Negotiate and discuss the disagreement, and if necessary, invite a third researcher to determine the results. The risk of bias included in the literature was evaluated from six aspects: selection bias, performance bias, detection bias, attrition bias, reporting bias, and other bias. Each item is evaluated with “low risk,” “high risk,” and “unclear risk.” If all of them meet the requirements of “low risk,” they will be rated as class A; if some of them meet the requirements of “low risk,” they will be rated as class B; and if none of them meet the requirements of “low risk,” they will be rated as class C.


### 2.5. Data Analysis

RevMan 5.3 is applied to analyze these clinical data. If the outcome index is a continuous variable and the measurement units are the same, the weighted mean difference (MD) is used for data statistics and the 95% confidence interval is calculated. If the outcome is a binary variable, the odds ratio (OR) is used. This study detects the heterogeneity between studies by calculating theI2 value. When I2=0, there is no heterogeneity. When 0<I2<50%, the heterogeneity is small, and the fixed effect model is performed. When I2≥50%, the heterogeneity is large, and the random effect model is adopted.


## 2.1. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

### 2.1.1. Inclusion Criteria

The inclusion criteria are the following: (1) research type: randomized controlled trails (RCT); (2) patient information: children with type 2 diabetes,age≤21 years old; (3) intervention measures: the nursing group was given other nursing interventions based on the routine nursing, and the control group was given routine nursing; (4) outcome indexes: literature with one of the following indicators can be included: fasting blood glucose (FBG, mmol/L), 2 h postprandial blood glucose (2hPG, mmol/L), fasting insulin (FINS, U/L), 2 h postprandial insulin (2hINS, U/L), triglycerides (TG, mmol/L), systolic blood pressure (SBP, mmHg), and total effectiveness of blood glucose control (cases).


### 2.1.2. Exclusion Criteria

The exclusion criteria are the following: (1) repeatedly published literature and (2) studies with incomplete information and unable to extract effective data.


## 2.1.1. Inclusion Criteria

The inclusion criteria are the following: (1) research type: randomized controlled trails (RCT); (2) patient information: children with type 2 diabetes,age≤21 years old; (3) intervention measures: the nursing group was given other nursing interventions based on the routine nursing, and the control group was given routine nursing; (4) outcome indexes: literature with one of the following indicators can be included: fasting blood glucose (FBG, mmol/L), 2 h postprandial blood glucose (2hPG, mmol/L), fasting insulin (FINS, U/L), 2 h postprandial insulin (2hINS, U/L), triglycerides (TG, mmol/L), systolic blood pressure (SBP, mmHg), and total effectiveness of blood glucose control (cases).


## 2.1.2. Exclusion Criteria

The exclusion criteria are the following: (1) repeatedly published literature and (2) studies with incomplete information and unable to extract effective data.


## 2.2. Literature Retrieval Strategy

The RCTs on nursing intervention in children with type 2 diabetes in CNKI, VIP, WanFang, CBM, PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Embase, and Science were searched by the computer until July 2022. It was supplemented by manual secondary retrieval, so as to ensure the comprehensiveness of literature retrieval. The Chinese search takes “Nursing,” “Child,” and “diabetes mellitus, type 2” as the subject words for combined hybrid search. Taking WanFang database as an example, the search formula is as follows: (nursing OR intervention) AND (child OR teenagers OR children) and diabetes mellitus, type 2. English retrieval takes “nursing”, “child”, “diabetes mellitus, type 2,” “randomized controlled trial” as the subject word for combinatorial hybrid retrieval. Taking PubMed as an example, the formula is as follows: (((((((((“Nursing”[Mesh])) OR (Nurse[Title/Abstract])) OR (Care[Title/Abstract])) OR (Caring[Title/Abstract])) OR (Intervention[Title/Abstract])) OR (Intervene[Title/Abstract])) AND (((((((“Child”[Mesh])) OR (Children[Title/Abstract])) OR (preschool[Title/Abstract])) OR (young[Title/Abstract])) OR (youngsters[Title/Abstract])) OR (teenagers[Title/Abstract]))) AND ((((((((((((((((((((((“Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2”[Mesh]) OR (Diabetes Mellitus, Noninsulin-Dependent[Title/Abstract])) OR (Diabetes Mellitus, Ketosis-Resistant[Title/Abstract])) OR (Diabetes Mellitus, Ketosis Resistant[Title/Abstract])) OR (Ketosis-Resistant Diabetes Mellitus[Title/Abstract])) OR (Diabetes Mellitus, Non Insulin Dependent[Title/Abstract])) OR (Diabetes Mellitus, Non-Insulin-Dependent[Title/Abstract])) OR (Non-Insulin-Dependent Diabetes Mellitus[Title/Abstract])) OR (Diabetes Mellitus, Stable[Title/Abstract])) OR (Stable Diabetes Mellitus[Title/Abstract])) OR (Diabetes Mellitus, Type II[Title/Abstract])) OR (NIDDM[Title/Abstract])) OR (Diabetes Mellitus, Noninsulin Dependent[Title/Abstract])) OR (Diabetes Mellitus, Maturity-Onset[Title/Abstract])) OR (Maturity Onset Diabetes Mellitus[Title/Abstract])) OR (MODY[Title/Abstract])) OR (Diabetes Mellitus, Slow Onset[Title/Abstract])) OR (Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus[Title/Abstract])) OR (Noninsulin Dependent Diabetes Mellitus[Title/Abstract])) OR (Maturity Onset Diabetes[Title/Abstract])) OR (Type 2 Diabetes[Title/Abstract])) OR (Diabetes, Type 2[Title/Abstract]))) AND (“Randomized Controlled Trial” [Publication Type]).


## 2.3. Data and Relevant Information Extraction

Using an independent double-blind method, two researchers read the topics and abstracts for preliminary screening and then read the full text for rescreening. Extract data from the final included literature, cross-check it, and deliver the divergence to the third researcher to decide whether to include it after verification. The extracted information includes (1) the first author and the year of publication; (2) study design, patients number, age, and gender; (3) intervention measures, intervention time, and intervention cycle; and (4) outcome measures: FBG, 2hPG, FINS, 2hINS, TG, SBP, and total effectiveness of blood glucose control.


## 2.4. Study Quality Evaluation

The quality of the analyses is influenced by the bias risk of the included studies. In this study, two researchers evaluated the quality of articles using the bias risk assessment tool in RevMan 5.3. Negotiate and discuss the disagreement, and if necessary, invite a third researcher to determine the results. The risk of bias included in the literature was evaluated from six aspects: selection bias, performance bias, detection bias, attrition bias, reporting bias, and other bias. Each item is evaluated with “low risk,” “high risk,” and “unclear risk.” If all of them meet the requirements of “low risk,” they will be rated as class A; if some of them meet the requirements of “low risk,” they will be rated as class B; and if none of them meet the requirements of “low risk,” they will be rated as class C.


## 2.5. Data Analysis

RevMan 5.3 is applied to analyze these clinical data. If the outcome index is a continuous variable and the measurement units are the same, the weighted mean difference (MD) is used for data statistics and the 95% confidence interval is calculated. If the outcome is a binary variable, the odds ratio (OR) is used. This study detects the heterogeneity between studies by calculating theI2 value. When I2=0, there is no heterogeneity. When 0<I2<50%, the heterogeneity is small, and the fixed effect model is performed. When I2≥50%, the heterogeneity is large, and the random effect model is adopted.


## 3. Results

### 3.1. Article Retrieval and Basic Characteristics of Included Literature

1439 relevant literatures were initially detected, and 984 literatures were obtained after eliminating duplicate literatures. After excluding repeated publications, reviews, and noncompliance with the inclusion criteria through primary screening, 87 literatures were left. Finally, 5 RCTs were kept after excluding noncompliance with the inclusion criteria through secondary screening, with a total of 319 patients, where 162 was in the nursing group and 157 was in the control group. The article screening details and the basic information of these studies are shown in Figure1 and Table 1, respectively.Figure 1
Article screening flow chart.Table 1
Basic characteristics of the included study.
Cases (n)Gender (male/female,n)Age (years)Primary outcomeNursing groupControl groupNursing groupControl groupNursing groupControl groupBa et al. (2017) [18]454525/2023/228.6±1.29.8±1.3(7)Chen et al. (2006) [19]232016/712/812.96±1.5212.15±0.75(1), (2), (3) (4), (5), (6), (7)Li et al. (2011) [20]242414/1013/1112.9±1.512.2±0.8(1), (2), (5), (6), (7)Liang (2005) [21]201812/811/712.96±1.5212.5±0.75(1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7)Yu (2016) [22]505028/2227/2310.5±0.910.6±1.1(1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6)Primary outcome: (1): fasting blood glucose (FBG, mmol/L); (2) 2 h postprandial blood glucose (2hPG, mmol/L); (3): fasting insulin (FINS, U/L); (4): 2 h postprandial insulin (2hINS, U/L); (5): triglycerides (TG, mmol/L); (6): systolic blood pressure (SBP, mmHg); and (7): total effectiveness of blood glucose control (cases).


### 3.2. Literature Quality Evaluation

In the 5 literatures, the clinical baselines of the nursing group and the control group including the gender, age, and prenursing indicators are comparable. RevMan 5.3 software was utilized to evaluate the bias risk of literature. Specifically, the patients in the five articles were randomly grouped, only one mentioned the use of random number table method, and the other four did not mention it. Besides, all the articles did not describe the detection bias and the quality of literature was all class B, see Table2 and Figure 2 for more information.Table 2
The scale for assessing the report quality of clinical trials.
Literature yearRandom sequence generationAllocation concealmentPerformance biasDetection biasAttrition biasReporting biasOther biasQualityBa et al. (2017) [18]Unclear riskLow riskHigh riskUnclear riskLow riskUnclear riskLow riskBChen et al. (2006) [19]Unclear riskLow riskUnclear riskUnclear riskLow riskLow riskLow riskBLi et al. (2011) [20]Unclear riskLow riskUnclear riskUnclear riskLow riskLow riskLow riskBLiang (2005) [21]Unclear riskLow riskUnclear riskUnclear riskLow riskLow riskLow riskBYu (2016) [22]Low riskLow riskUnclear riskUnclear riskLow riskLow riskLow riskBFigure 2
Included study bias risk assessment chart.


### 3.3. Analyses and Results

#### 3.3.1. Effect of Nursing Intervention on FBG

Four studies compared the FBG levels of the two groups, where the literature by Yu (2016) was eliminated to reduce the heterogeneity. Finally, 129 patients were included, where the number of patients in the nursing group and control group was 67 and 62, respectively. The results of meta-analysis showed that there was still a certain heterogeneity (P=0.08, I2=60%), so the random effect (RE) model was adopted for analysis (MD=−1.68, 95% CI (-2.19, -1.17), P<0.00001]) It can be considered that nursing intervention can effectively reduce the FBG level of children with type 2 diabetes, as shown in (Figure 3).Figure 3
Effect of nursing intervention and routine nursing on fasting blood glucose (FBG).


#### 3.3.2. Effect of Nursing Intervention on 2hPG

Four studies compared the levels of 2hPG in the two groups, where the literature by Yu (2016) was eliminated to reduce the heterogeneity. The results showed that the heterogeneity decreased significantly after removing sensitive articles (P=0.70, I2=0%). Further, the FE model was used (MD=−4.01, 95% CI (-4.70, -3.33), P<0.00001), indicating that nursing intervention can effectively reduce the level of 2hPG in children, as shown in Figure 4.Figure 4
Effect of nursing intervention and routine nursing on 2 h postprandial blood glucose (2hPG).


#### 3.3.3. Effect of Nursing Intervention on FINS

Three studies compared the levels of FINS between the two groups, including 181 patients, where 93 in the nursing group and 88 in the control group. Since the heterogeneity of these studies was small (P=0.81, I2=0%), the fixed effect (FE) model was performed for analysis (MD=−7.42, 95% CI (-10.63, -4.20), P<0.00001), indicating that nursing intervention was better than routine nursing in reducing FINS in children with type 2 diabetes. More information is shown in Figure 5.Figure 5
Effect of nursing intervention and routine nursing on fasting insulin (FINS).


#### 3.3.4. Effect of Nursing Intervention on 2hINS

As shown in Figure6, three studies compared the levels of 2hINS. A total of 181 patients were collected, where 93 patients were divided into the nursing group and 88 patients were assigned to the control group. Some heterogeneity existed in the included studies (P<0.002, I2=84%), and the RE model was used for analysis (MD=−58.18, 95% CI (-103.24, -13.11), P=0.01). It can be considered that nursing intervention is better than routine nursing in reducing 2hINS in children with type 2 diabetes.Figure 6
Effect of nursing intervention and routine nursing on 2 h postprandial insulin (2hINS).


#### 3.3.5. Effect of Nursing Intervention on TG

Four studies compared the TG levels of the two groups, a total of117thenursinggroup+112thecontrolgroup patients. Due to the low heterogeneity between these studies (P=0.81, I2=0%), the FE model was used for analysis (MD=−0.41, 95% CI (-0.56, -0.25), P<0.00001). Meta-analysis results show that nursing intervention has a better control effect on TG level of patients (Figure 7).Figure 7
Effect of nursing intervention and routine nursing on triglycerides (TG).


#### 3.3.6. Effect of Nursing Intervention on SBP

As shown in Figure8, four studies compared the SBP levels, which have the same number patients as above. Because of the high heterogeneity between these studies (P=0.08, I2=55%), the RE model was adopted (MD=−8.85, 95% CI (-14.67, -3.03), P=0.003). It showed that nursing intervention has a better effect on the control of SBP in patients.Figure 8
Effect of nursing intervention and routine nursing on systolic blood pressure (SBP).


#### 3.3.7. Effect of Nursing Intervention on the Total Effectiveness of Blood Glucose Control

As shown in Figure9, four studies compared the total effectiveness of blood glucose control (112 patients in the nursing group and 107 patients in the control group). Due to the low heterogeneity of the included studies (P=0.58, I2=0%), the fixed effect model was used for analysis (MD=4.71, 95% CI (2.5, 8.88), P<0.00001). It can be considered that nursing intervention can effectively control the blood glucose of children and maintain it at a normal level.Figure 9
Effect of nursing intervention and routine nursing on total effectiveness of blood glucose control.


#### 3.3.8. Funnel Chart of Publication Bias in Each Dimension

As shown in Figure10, the funnel chart was used to detect publication bias of the literatures included in the study. The result showed that the dots are asymmetrically distributed on both sides of the vertical line, suggesting that there is a certain publication bias in the literature.Figure 10
Funnel chart of publication bias in each dimension: (a) FBG, (b) 2hPG, (c) FINS, (d) 2hINS, (e) TG, (f) SBP, and (g) total effectiveness of blood glucose control.
(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g)


## 3.1. Article Retrieval and Basic Characteristics of Included Literature

1439 relevant literatures were initially detected, and 984 literatures were obtained after eliminating duplicate literatures. After excluding repeated publications, reviews, and noncompliance with the inclusion criteria through primary screening, 87 literatures were left. Finally, 5 RCTs were kept after excluding noncompliance with the inclusion criteria through secondary screening, with a total of 319 patients, where 162 was in the nursing group and 157 was in the control group. The article screening details and the basic information of these studies are shown in Figure1 and Table 1, respectively.Figure 1
Article screening flow chart.Table 1
Basic characteristics of the included study.
Cases (n)Gender (male/female,n)Age (years)Primary outcomeNursing groupControl groupNursing groupControl groupNursing groupControl groupBa et al. (2017) [18]454525/2023/228.6±1.29.8±1.3(7)Chen et al. (2006) [19]232016/712/812.96±1.5212.15±0.75(1), (2), (3) (4), (5), (6), (7)Li et al. (2011) [20]242414/1013/1112.9±1.512.2±0.8(1), (2), (5), (6), (7)Liang (2005) [21]201812/811/712.96±1.5212.5±0.75(1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7)Yu (2016) [22]505028/2227/2310.5±0.910.6±1.1(1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6)Primary outcome: (1): fasting blood glucose (FBG, mmol/L); (2) 2 h postprandial blood glucose (2hPG, mmol/L); (3): fasting insulin (FINS, U/L); (4): 2 h postprandial insulin (2hINS, U/L); (5): triglycerides (TG, mmol/L); (6): systolic blood pressure (SBP, mmHg); and (7): total effectiveness of blood glucose control (cases).


## 3.2. Literature Quality Evaluation

In the 5 literatures, the clinical baselines of the nursing group and the control group including the gender, age, and prenursing indicators are comparable. RevMan 5.3 software was utilized to evaluate the bias risk of literature. Specifically, the patients in the five articles were randomly grouped, only one mentioned the use of random number table method, and the other four did not mention it. Besides, all the articles did not describe the detection bias and the quality of literature was all class B, see Table2 and Figure 2 for more information.Table 2
The scale for assessing the report quality of clinical trials.
Literature yearRandom sequence generationAllocation concealmentPerformance biasDetection biasAttrition biasReporting biasOther biasQualityBa et al. (2017) [18]Unclear riskLow riskHigh riskUnclear riskLow riskUnclear riskLow riskBChen et al. (2006) [19]Unclear riskLow riskUnclear riskUnclear riskLow riskLow riskLow riskBLi et al. (2011) [20]Unclear riskLow riskUnclear riskUnclear riskLow riskLow riskLow riskBLiang (2005) [21]Unclear riskLow riskUnclear riskUnclear riskLow riskLow riskLow riskBYu (2016) [22]Low riskLow riskUnclear riskUnclear riskLow riskLow riskLow riskBFigure 2
Included study bias risk assessment chart.


## 3.3. Analyses and Results

### 3.3.1. Effect of Nursing Intervention on FBG

Four studies compared the FBG levels of the two groups, where the literature by Yu (2016) was eliminated to reduce the heterogeneity. Finally, 129 patients were included, where the number of patients in the nursing group and control group was 67 and 62, respectively. The results of meta-analysis showed that there was still a certain heterogeneity (P=0.08, I2=60%), so the random effect (RE) model was adopted for analysis (MD=−1.68, 95% CI (-2.19, -1.17), P<0.00001]) It can be considered that nursing intervention can effectively reduce the FBG level of children with type 2 diabetes, as shown in (Figure 3).Figure 3
Effect of nursing intervention and routine nursing on fasting blood glucose (FBG).


### 3.3.2. Effect of Nursing Intervention on 2hPG

Four studies compared the levels of 2hPG in the two groups, where the literature by Yu (2016) was eliminated to reduce the heterogeneity. The results showed that the heterogeneity decreased significantly after removing sensitive articles (P=0.70, I2=0%). Further, the FE model was used (MD=−4.01, 95% CI (-4.70, -3.33), P<0.00001), indicating that nursing intervention can effectively reduce the level of 2hPG in children, as shown in Figure 4.Figure 4
Effect of nursing intervention and routine nursing on 2 h postprandial blood glucose (2hPG).


### 3.3.3. Effect of Nursing Intervention on FINS

Three studies compared the levels of FINS between the two groups, including 181 patients, where 93 in the nursing group and 88 in the control group. Since the heterogeneity of these studies was small (P=0.81, I2=0%), the fixed effect (FE) model was performed for analysis (MD=−7.42, 95% CI (-10.63, -4.20), P<0.00001), indicating that nursing intervention was better than routine nursing in reducing FINS in children with type 2 diabetes. More information is shown in Figure 5.Figure 5
Effect of nursing intervention and routine nursing on fasting insulin (FINS).


### 3.3.4. Effect of Nursing Intervention on 2hINS

As shown in Figure6, three studies compared the levels of 2hINS. A total of 181 patients were collected, where 93 patients were divided into the nursing group and 88 patients were assigned to the control group. Some heterogeneity existed in the included studies (P<0.002, I2=84%), and the RE model was used for analysis (MD=−58.18, 95% CI (-103.24, -13.11), P=0.01). It can be considered that nursing intervention is better than routine nursing in reducing 2hINS in children with type 2 diabetes.Figure 6
Effect of nursing intervention and routine nursing on 2 h postprandial insulin (2hINS).


### 3.3.5. Effect of Nursing Intervention on TG

Four studies compared the TG levels of the two groups, a total of117thenursinggroup+112thecontrolgroup patients. Due to the low heterogeneity between these studies (P=0.81, I2=0%), the FE model was used for analysis (MD=−0.41, 95% CI (-0.56, -0.25), P<0.00001). Meta-analysis results show that nursing intervention has a better control effect on TG level of patients (Figure 7).Figure 7
Effect of nursing intervention and routine nursing on triglycerides (TG).


### 3.3.6. Effect of Nursing Intervention on SBP

As shown in Figure8, four studies compared the SBP levels, which have the same number patients as above. Because of the high heterogeneity between these studies (P=0.08, I2=55%), the RE model was adopted (MD=−8.85, 95% CI (-14.67, -3.03), P=0.003). It showed that nursing intervention has a better effect on the control of SBP in patients.Figure 8
Effect of nursing intervention and routine nursing on systolic blood pressure (SBP).


### 3.3.7. Effect of Nursing Intervention on the Total Effectiveness of Blood Glucose Control

As shown in Figure9, four studies compared the total effectiveness of blood glucose control (112 patients in the nursing group and 107 patients in the control group). Due to the low heterogeneity of the included studies (P=0.58, I2=0%), the fixed effect model was used for analysis (MD=4.71, 95% CI (2.5, 8.88), P<0.00001). It can be considered that nursing intervention can effectively control the blood glucose of children and maintain it at a normal level.Figure 9
Effect of nursing intervention and routine nursing on total effectiveness of blood glucose control.


### 3.3.8. Funnel Chart of Publication Bias in Each Dimension

As shown in Figure10, the funnel chart was used to detect publication bias of the literatures included in the study. The result showed that the dots are asymmetrically distributed on both sides of the vertical line, suggesting that there is a certain publication bias in the literature.Figure 10
Funnel chart of publication bias in each dimension: (a) FBG, (b) 2hPG, (c) FINS, (d) 2hINS, (e) TG, (f) SBP, and (g) total effectiveness of blood glucose control.
(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g)


## 3.3.1. Effect of Nursing Intervention on FBG

Four studies compared the FBG levels of the two groups, where the literature by Yu (2016) was eliminated to reduce the heterogeneity. Finally, 129 patients were included, where the number of patients in the nursing group and control group was 67 and 62, respectively. The results of meta-analysis showed that there was still a certain heterogeneity (P=0.08, I2=60%), so the random effect (RE) model was adopted for analysis (MD=−1.68, 95% CI (-2.19, -1.17), P<0.00001]) It can be considered that nursing intervention can effectively reduce the FBG level of children with type 2 diabetes, as shown in (Figure 3).Figure 3
Effect of nursing intervention and routine nursing on fasting blood glucose (FBG).


## 3.3.2. Effect of Nursing Intervention on 2hPG

Four studies compared the levels of 2hPG in the two groups, where the literature by Yu (2016) was eliminated to reduce the heterogeneity. The results showed that the heterogeneity decreased significantly after removing sensitive articles (P=0.70, I2=0%). Further, the FE model was used (MD=−4.01, 95% CI (-4.70, -3.33), P<0.00001), indicating that nursing intervention can effectively reduce the level of 2hPG in children, as shown in Figure 4.Figure 4
Effect of nursing intervention and routine nursing on 2 h postprandial blood glucose (2hPG).


## 3.3.3. Effect of Nursing Intervention on FINS

Three studies compared the levels of FINS between the two groups, including 181 patients, where 93 in the nursing group and 88 in the control group. Since the heterogeneity of these studies was small (P=0.81, I2=0%), the fixed effect (FE) model was performed for analysis (MD=−7.42, 95% CI (-10.63, -4.20), P<0.00001), indicating that nursing intervention was better than routine nursing in reducing FINS in children with type 2 diabetes. More information is shown in Figure 5.Figure 5
Effect of nursing intervention and routine nursing on fasting insulin (FINS).


## 3.3.4. Effect of Nursing Intervention on 2hINS

As shown in Figure6, three studies compared the levels of 2hINS. A total of 181 patients were collected, where 93 patients were divided into the nursing group and 88 patients were assigned to the control group. Some heterogeneity existed in the included studies (P<0.002, I2=84%), and the RE model was used for analysis (MD=−58.18, 95% CI (-103.24, -13.11), P=0.01). It can be considered that nursing intervention is better than routine nursing in reducing 2hINS in children with type 2 diabetes.Figure 6
Effect of nursing intervention and routine nursing on 2 h postprandial insulin (2hINS).


## 3.3.5. Effect of Nursing Intervention on TG

Four studies compared the TG levels of the two groups, a total of117thenursinggroup+112thecontrolgroup patients. Due to the low heterogeneity between these studies (P=0.81, I2=0%), the FE model was used for analysis (MD=−0.41, 95% CI (-0.56, -0.25), P<0.00001). Meta-analysis results show that nursing intervention has a better control effect on TG level of patients (Figure 7).Figure 7
Effect of nursing intervention and routine nursing on triglycerides (TG).


## 3.3.6. Effect of Nursing Intervention on SBP

As shown in Figure8, four studies compared the SBP levels, which have the same number patients as above. Because of the high heterogeneity between these studies (P=0.08, I2=55%), the RE model was adopted (MD=−8.85, 95% CI (-14.67, -3.03), P=0.003). It showed that nursing intervention has a better effect on the control of SBP in patients.Figure 8
Effect of nursing intervention and routine nursing on systolic blood pressure (SBP).


## 3.3.7. Effect of Nursing Intervention on the Total Effectiveness of Blood Glucose Control

As shown in Figure9, four studies compared the total effectiveness of blood glucose control (112 patients in the nursing group and 107 patients in the control group). Due to the low heterogeneity of the included studies (P=0.58, I2=0%), the fixed effect model was used for analysis (MD=4.71, 95% CI (2.5, 8.88), P<0.00001). It can be considered that nursing intervention can effectively control the blood glucose of children and maintain it at a normal level.Figure 9
Effect of nursing intervention and routine nursing on total effectiveness of blood glucose control.


## 3.3.8. Funnel Chart of Publication Bias in Each Dimension

As shown in Figure10, the funnel chart was used to detect publication bias of the literatures included in the study. The result showed that the dots are asymmetrically distributed on both sides of the vertical line, suggesting that there is a certain publication bias in the literature.Figure 10
Funnel chart of publication bias in each dimension: (a) FBG, (b) 2hPG, (c) FINS, (d) 2hINS, (e) TG, (f) SBP, and (g) total effectiveness of blood glucose control.
(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g)


## 4. Discussion

Type 2 diabetes is rare in children with diabetes, accounting for about 5% of the incidence rate of diabetes in children [23]. The disease is a chronic disease with serious clinical harm, which seriously endangers children’s daily life [24, 25]. Since there is no complete cure at present, it is very important to take appropriate treatment measures to control blood glucose in the body [26]. The results of this study show that nursing intervention can significantly reduce the fasting blood glucose of children (MD=−1.68, 95% CI (-2.19, -1.17), P<0.00001) and 2 h postprandial blood glucose (MD=−4.01, 95% CI (-4.70, -3.33), P<0.00001) and strengthen the hypoglycemic effect. Compared with routine nursing, nursing intervention is more targeted, providing patients with diabetes education and life, emotional, and behavioral support, strengthening patients’ understanding of the disease and enhancing the understanding to the important role of blood glucose in disease progression [27]. On the other hand, combined diet control, exercise therapy, bad behavior correction, blood glucose real-time monitoring, and other measures, nursing intervention plays a positive role in blood glucose control [28].Insulin resistance and pancreaticβ cell function defects are two pathological features of type 2 diabetes [29]. Due to the lack of effective use of insulin, the level of insulin secreted by the body is excessive, which makes the pancreatic β cell function gradually decreases [30]. Therefore, more attention should be paid to insulin resistance in the prevention and treatment of type 2 diabetes. The results of this study showed that, compared with routine nursing, nursing intervention can significantly reduce fasting insulin in children (MD=−7.42, 95% CI (-10.63, -4.20), P<0.00001) and 2 h postprandial insulin (MD=−58.18, 95% CI (-103.24, -13.11), P=0.01) and effectively promote the utilization of insulin in patients. The reason is that the nursing intervention mode strengthens the relevant behaviors and knowledge of patients and enables patients to better understand the problems existing in the process of disease management and actively correct them, which is conducive to the formation of patients’ health awareness and improves their self-management ability by analyzing the problems existing in the process of insulin secretion, utilization, and conversion with patients and guiding patients to write disease diaries. Patients pay close attention to insulin and other indicators during treatment and communicate with doctors at any time, which is conducive to the doctors’ timely feedback. Thus, it can promote the good use of insulin in patients and make the treatment effect more effective.Studies have shown that history of hypertension, history of staying up late, and high triglycerides are possible influencing factors of type 2 diabetes [31–33]. Therefore, we will combine these basic clinical indicators to judge the patient’s condition control. This study systematically discussed the effects of nursing intervention on triglycerides and systolic blood pressure by collecting data from some literatures. The results revealed that nursing intervention could effectively decrease the triglyceride level of children with type 2 diabetes (MD=−0.41, 95% CI (-0.56, -0.25), P<0.00001) and maintain the systolic blood pressure of children in a normal state (MD=−8.85, 95% CI (-14.67, -3.03), P=0.003). The reason is that triglycerides and systolic blood pressure are closely related to dietary obesity and lack of exercise [34, 35]. Therefore, in the process of nursing intervention, doctors and nurses will work with children and parents to formulate weight loss goals and take a step-by-step approach to gradually reduce weight. Dietitians should reasonably adjust their dietary structure. Special personnel were assigned to give specific exercise guidance, and the amount of therapeutic exercise was determined according to the height, weight, and obesity of each child. Through weight loss, diet, and exercise to guide children’s daily life, their triglyceride and systolic blood pressure levels were improved.The effectiveness of blood glucose control in children with type 2 diabetes is an important indicator for the systematic evaluation of this treatment measure [36]. This meta-analysis showed that nursing intervention applied to the treatment of children with type 2 diabetes could significantly improve the total effectiveness of blood glucose control (MD=4.71, 95% CI (2.5, 8.88), P<0.00001), and the difference was statistically significant. Compared with routine nursing, nursing intervention can effectively control patients’ fasting blood glucose and 2 h postprandial blood glucose, improve patients’ self-management ability, and guide patients to implement correct nursing behavior, so as to improve the total efficiency of blood glucose control [37].This study has some limitations. (1) Due to the small number of children with type 2 diabetes, there are few articles on the effect of nursing intervention on the treatment of type 2 diabetes in children. In this meta-analysis, a total of 5 RCT studies of medium quality were collected, which still need to be supported by evidence-based articles of higher quality. (2) We only searched the literature in Chinese and English languages. After the search and screening, there are 4 Chinese articles and 1 English article, which may have problems such as publication bias and incomplete document collection. (3) In this analysis, we analyzed the seven outcome indicators of FBG, 2hPG, FINS, 2hINS, TG, SBP, and blood glucose control, but glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c,%) is also an important indicator to evaluate the treatment effect of children [38]. Since only two literatures in this study reported HbAc1 data, which is of little statistical value, it was not included in this analysis. (4) From the analysis results of seven outcome indicators, the results of FBG, 2hPG, 2hINS, and SBP have great heterogeneity. Analyzing the reasons that the research objects in Li (2011) and Yu (2016) included not only children with type 2 diabetes but also children with obesity and abnormal glucose metabolism. Although obesity and abnormal glucose metabolism are high-risk factors for type 2 diabetes, they can also affect the results. On the other hand, it may be related to nursing intervention measures and nursing time. Among the 5 articles, 4 introduced their nursing method as comprehensive nursing, and 1 did not introduce it; three articles introduced their nursing intervention about 18 months and the other two did not. Because the number of included literatures is too small to conduct subgroup analysis, this result needs more high-quality research support.


## 5. Conclusion

Nursing intervention has a significant effect in controlling blood glucose, promoting insulin utilization, improving triglyceride levels, and improving the total effective rate of blood glucose control in children with type 2 diabetes. Although the implementation of comprehensive nursing requires nurses to pay more time and energy, it provides a full range of services for children, has good clinical application value, and is worth promoting.



---

*Source: 6185739-2022-08-25.xml*