What is the clinical evidence from this study?

Study design: Cross-Sectional. Population: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (n=176). Intervention: Insulin therapy vs. Non-insulin therapy. Primary outcome: Poor glycaemic control (HbA1c ≥ 7%) (adjusted OR 6.32, 95% CI 2.71-14.71).

What question did this study set out to answer?

This research aims to identify demographic, clinical, and treatment-related factors associated with poor glycaemic control among adults with type 2 diabetes in Albania.

July 10, 2026BMC Endocrine DisordersOpen Access

Factors associated with poor glycaemic control among adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus in Albania: a cross-sectional study

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Key result

Insulin therapy linked to ~6-fold higher odds of poor glycemic control in T2D.

adjusted OR 6.32
95% CI 2.71-14.71
n=176

Population

176 consecutive adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus attending a hospital-based outpatient diabetes service…

Design

Cross-sectional

Authors

ZSZamira ShabaniUniversity of Shkodra "Luigj Gurakuqi"EHEdona HaxhijaEuropean University of Tirana EDElvisa DrishtiCenter for Economic Research and Graduate Education – Economics Institute

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

In an Albanian outpatient cohort, poor glycaemic control was common and strongly associated with insulin therapy, likely reflecting confounding by indication in patients with advanced disease.

Key Points

This research aims to identify demographic, clinical, and treatment-related factors associated with poor glycaemic control among adults with type 2 diabetes in Albania.
Cross-sectional study of 176 adults with type 2 diabetes attending an outpatient service in northern Albania.
Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to estimate odds ratios and confidence intervals.
Demographics, diabetes duration, insulin therapy, and comorbidities were recorded and analyzed.
Prevalence of poor glycaemic control (HbA1c ≥ 7%) was 58.5% (95% CI 50.9–65.9%).
Insulin therapy was independently associated with poor glycaemic control (adjusted OR 6.32, 95% CI 2.71–14.71).
Other factors like age and diabetes duration were not independently linked after adjustments.

Study Design

Type

Cross-Sectional (n=176)

Multicenter

Structured PICO

Population

176 adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus attending a hospital-based outpatient diabetes service in northern Albania.

Outcome

Poor glycaemic control (HbA1c ≥ 7% [53 mmol/mol])surrogate

Main Result

Odds Ratio: 6.32 (95% CI 2.71–14.71)

In an Albanian outpatient cohort, poor glycaemic control was common and strongly associated with insulin therapy, likely reflecting confounding by indication in patients with advanced disease.

Limitations

Cross-sectional design cannot confirm temporal direction of associations
Confounding by indication for insulin therapy
Cross-sectional design cannot establish temporal direction
Single-center study

Cite This Study

Shabani et al. (2026) conducted a cross-sectional in Type 2 diabetes mellitus (n=176). Insulin therapy vs. Non-insulin therapy was evaluated on Poor glycaemic control (HbA1c ≥ 7%) (adjusted OR 6.32, 95% CI 2.71-14.71). Insulin therapy was independently associated with poor glycaemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes (adjusted OR 6.32; 95% CI 2.71-14.71), likely reflecting confounding by indication.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a508bde6eeac72a437a03ec https://doi.org/10.1186/s12902-026-02378-9

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Implication

In an Albanian outpatient cohort, poor glycaemic control was common and strongly associated with insulin therapy, likely reflecting confounding by indication in patients with advanced disease.