Extracted information independent of relevant research data for articles that met the criteria considered.

The
discrepancy was resolved by a replacement. Use of the information extraction framework, the social barrier
type (low NSE or explicit ethnic populations), research objectives, research composition, mediation
preparation, and research population (Socioeconomic Score, NSE). Health insurance), the measurements and
metrics used and the principles of discovery.

To systematically explain the extent and part of intercession, the main features of each meditation article have
been isolated from an important section of the recent scientific classification of diabetes mediators. There will
be a focus on intercession (patient, provider or social structure). Some necessary reviews are aimed at the
population. Mediation segment: substances related to diabetes, effect of sirtuin, time / power, and mediation.
For those journal articles, which referenced for the earlier publications (such as defining the needs,
interventions or assessments) retrieved the original production and improved important information retrieved.

Validity assessment

If the test is described as randomized, if the randomization is appropriate and described, and there is a
description of the draw and the cancellation. Since the type of mediation to be examined cannot be blinded, no
blinded examination is performed. Therefore, only those studies were included in which adequate explanation
regarding the interventions were given.

Data analysis
In view of the population, mediation and heterogeneity of the results, the results could not be combined in a
meta-study. Optionally, it was used as a late strategy to distinguish explicit, explicit intercession points that
could potentially be related to fruitful or ineffective outcomes. Based on the five categories, a total of 26
highlights were identified. 1) Intervention target, 2) Intervention method, 3) Intervention determination, 4)
Intervention deliverance method, 5) Sttrength and degree of intervention. For each intervention, two analysts
(including J.B., N.R.K.) were unable to indicate or address these specific highlights. The contradiction was
resolved by a conversation with a third commentator (R.H.G.).

Subsequently, two analysts (R.H.G. and N.R.K.) independently assessed whether the advocacy provided a
realistic and clinically significant positive result. The critical value was set to P <0.05, but due to the many
possible outcomes, no predefined criteria for clinical substances were established. Instead, each commentator
generally ruled on the clinical significance. When detailed studies on different types of outcomes were made,
decisions were mainly made by clinical measurements. Centers that did not report clinical action made their
decisions based on management and self-management outcomes. For each of the 26 highlights, identify the
percentage of achievements with and without an item (the percentage of items with positive results and items
without products with positive results). Rate). Positive and negative rate fluctuations suggest that mediation is
often associated with positive findings, with or without individual factors. Due to the small number of articles
contained, the CI was not identified, which limits the determination of the highlights that occurred in the five
included rate surveys. The use of this research method in this way was more useful than quantity. To assess
whether the survey results are consistent with the systematic nature of the survey, a subsequent Disability
Disability Test was conducted. 1) The research is limited to those who have randomized management plans, 2)
randomized structures with randomized structures, suitable images and those who have initial images It has
been further restricted.