Skip to main content

Table 4 Clinical factors and glycaemic control in sub-Saharan Africa

From: Glycaemic control among type 2 diabetes patients in sub-Saharan Africa from 2012 to 2022: a systematic review and meta-analysis

First author name

Year

Study design

Study setting

Study population

Sample size

Measurement of glycemic control

Definition of glycaemic control

Generic factor

Specific factors

Measure of association

Point estimate

Lower bound

Upper bound

Association with glycemic control

Thuita [80]

2019

Cross- sectional

Kenya

Type 2 diabetes; 20–79 years

153

HbA1c

Good control (HbA1c < 7%); poor control (HbA1c > 7%)

Past history of diabetes

Existence of family history of diabetes

β coefficient

0.119

0.066

0.874

A family history of diabetes was significantly associated with poor glycaemic control (p:0.017)

Adeniyi [18]

2016

Cross-sectional

South Africa

Type 2 diabetes; ≥ 30 years at diagnostic of DM

327

HbA1c

Good control (HbA1c ≤ 7%); poor control (HbA1c > 7%); moderately poor (HbA1c = 7–8.9%); critically poor (HbA1c ≥ 9%)

Duration of diabetes

Longer duration

Odds Ratio

35.8

4.4

294.2

Longer duration of type 2 diabetes was significantly associated with poor glycaemic control

BeLue [27]

2016

Cross-sectional

Senegal

Type 2 diabetes

106

HbA1c

Glycemic control (HbA1c < 7%)

ß coefficient

0.14

0.09

0.19

Longer duration of diabetes was significantly associated with poor glycaemic control (p < 0.05)

Botchway [31]

2021

Cross-sectional

Ghana

Type 2 diabetes;  ≥ 18 years

254

HbA1c

No threshold

ß coefficient

0.04

0.02

0.06

The duration of diabetes was not significantly associated with glycaemic control

Mashele [56]

2019

Cross-sectional

South Africa

Type 2 diabetes; 35–74 years

176

HbA1c

Optimal control (HbA1c < 7%); poor control (HbA1c ≥ 7%)

Odds Ratio

1.011

1.37

2.624

Duration of diabetes was not significantly associated with glycaemic control (p:0.497)

Mobula [58]

2018

Cross- sectional

Ghana

hypertensive and Type 2 diabetes; ≥ 18 years

1226

HbA1c

Poor control (HBA1c ≥ 7%)

Odds Ratio

1.04

1.02

1.06

Duration of diabetes was significantly associated with poor glycaemic control (p:0.0005)

Mphwanthe [61]

2020

Cross- sectional

Malawi

Type 2 diabetes;  ≥ 25 years

428

HbA1c

HbA1c clinically elevated ≥ 8%

ß coefficient

0.091

0.061

0.121

Duration of diabetes (p: .003) was significantly associated with poor glycaemic control (p: .003)

Omar [67]

2018

Cross-sectional

Sudan

Type 2 diabetes;  ≥ 18 years

339

HbA1c

Good control (HbA1c < 7%); Poor control (HbA1c ≥ 7%)

Odds Ratio

1.04

0.99

1.10

Duration of diabetes, years was not significantly associated with glycaemic control

Mwita [65]

2019

Cross-sectional

Botswana

Type 2 diabetes;  ≥ 18 years

500

HbA1c

Optimal glycaemic (HbA1c < 7%)

Odds Ratio

0.98

0.92

1.03

Diabetes duration,years was not significantly associated with glycaemic control

Belay [26]

2017

Cross-sectional

Ethiopia

Type 2 diabetes; 18–80 years

188

FPG

Good:FPG < 130 mg/dL; poor: FPG ≥ 130 mg/dL

Duration 5–10 years

Odds Ratio

2.6

1.12

6.01

Duration of diabetes 5–10 yrs was found significantly associated with poor glycaemic control

Duration ˃10 years

3.4

1.3

9.0

Duration of diabetes > 10 yrs was found significantly associated with poor glycaemic control

Camara [32]

2014

Cross- sectional

Cameroon and Guinea

Type 2 diabetes mellitus; ≥ 16 years

1267

HbA1c

Good control (HbA1C < 7.0% or < 53 mmol/mol)

Duration ≥ 3 years

Odds Ratio

2.36

1.74

3.20

Duration of diabetes of more or equal to 3 yrs was significantly associated with poor glycaemic control

Eticha [36]

2016

Cross- sectional

Ethiopia

Type 2 diabetes;  ≥ 18 years

384

HbA1c

Good control (HbA1c < 7%); poor control (HbA1c ≥ 7%)

Duration ≥ 7 years

Odds Ratio

0.8

0.4

1.6

Duration of diabetes of more or equal to 7 yrs was not significantly associated with glycaemic control

Fseha [40]

2017

Cross-sectional

Ethiopia

Type 2 diabetes; 22–60 years

200

FBS

Good (FBS 70–130 mg/dl), Poor (FBS > 130 mg/dl)

Odds Ratio

0.460

0.216

1.987

Duration of diabetes of more or equal to 7 yrs was not significantly associated with glycaemic control

Kefale [49]

2019

Case–control

Ethiopia

Type 2 diabetes; ≥ 18 years

169

FBS

Glycemic control (FBS ≤ 130 mg/dl)

Duration ≥ 5 years

Odds Ratio

1.9

0.7

5.5

Diabetes duration of more or equal to 5 years was not significantly associated with glycaemic control

Kimando [51]

2017

Cross- sectional

Kenya

Type 2 diabetes without overt complications; ≥ 30 years

385

HbA1c

Sub-optimal control (HbA1c > 7.0%)

Duration ˃ 5 years

Odds Ratio

1.1

0.7

1.6

Duration of diabetes of more than 5 years was not significantly associated with glycaemic control

Mamo [53]

2019

Case–control

Ethiopia

Type 2 diabetes with poor glycemic control (cases) and without good glycemic control (controls); > 18 years

410

FBG

Good control (average fasting blood glucose of 80–130 mg/dL); poor control (average fasting blood glucose of > 130 mg/dL)

Duration ˃ 7 years

Odds Ratio

3.08

1.33

7.16

Duration of diabetes of more than 7 years was not significantly associated with glycaemic control

Mwavua [64]

2016

Cross-sectional

Kenya

Type 2 diabetes;  ≥ 18 years

200

HbA1c

Good control (HbA1c < 7%); poor control (HbA1c ≥ 7%)

Duration ≤ 10 years

Odds Ratio

0.5

0.2

1.3

Diabetes duration less or equal to 10 years was not significantly associated with glycaemic control

Noor [66]

2017

Cross-sectional

Sudan

Type 2 diabetes

387

HbA1c

Controlled < 7% Uncontrolled > 7%

Duration ≥ 5 years

Odds Ratio

0.505

0.223

1.145

Diabetes duration of 5 years or more was not significantly associated with glycaemic control

Otieno [69]

2017

Cross-sectional

Kenya

Type 2 diabetes;  ≥ 30 years

220

HbA1c

Good control (HbA1c ≤ 7%); poor/suboptimal (HbA1c > 7%)

Duration 5–10 years

Odds Ratio

2.5

0.4

14.4

In patients with comorbid depression, duration of diabetes 5–10 years was not significantly associated with glycemic control

Duration ˃ 10 years

1.3

0.3

5.3

In patients with comorbid depression, duration of diabetes > 10 years was not significantly associated with glycemic control

Duration 5–10 years

1.0

0.4

2.1

In patients without depression, duration of diabetes 5–10 years was not significantly associated with glycemic control

Duration ˃ 10 years

1.9

0.8

4.6

In patients without depression, duration of diabetes > 10 years was not significantly associated with glycemic control

Rwegerera [73]

2019

Cross-sectional

Botswana

Type 2 diabetes

368

HbA1c

desirable (< 7%); suboptimal (7–9%); poor (≥ 9%)

5–10 years

Odds Ratio

0.34

0.13

0.86

Having a duration of diabetes of 5–10 yrs was associated with poor glycaemic control

˃10 years

0.42

0.15

1.15

Having a duration of diabetes of more than 10 yrs was not associated with glycaemic control

Tefera [77]

2020

Cross-sectional

Ethiopia

Type 2 diabetes;  ≥ 18 years

400

FPG

Controlled (FPG:80–130 mg/dl)

Duration 5–10 years

Odds Ratio

1.95

0.87

4.40

Duration of diabetes 5–10 years was found not significantly associated with glycaemic control

Duration ˃ 10 years

2.86

0.99

8.23

Duration of diabetes > 10 years was found not significantly associated with glycaemic control

Tekalegn [78]

2018

Cross-sectional

Ethiopia

Type 2 diabetes; ≥ 15 years

422

FBG

Good control (average FBG:70–130 mg/dL); poor control (average FBG > 130 or < 70 mg/dL)

Duration 5–10 years

Odds Ratio

2.72

1.16

6.32

Duration of diabetes from 5 to 10 years was significantly associated with poor glycaemic control

Duration ˃ 10 years

1.7

0.8

3.7

Duration of diabetes > 10 years was not significantly associated with glycaemic control

Abera [88]

2022

Cross-sectional

Ethiopia

Type 2 diabetes

325

HbA1c

Good control (HbA1c < 7%); Poor control (HbA1c ≥ 7%)

Duration > 10 years

Odds Ratio

3.15

2.22

6.54

Significant association between diabetes duration of more than 10 years and poor glycaemic control

Abebe [89]

2022

Cross-sectional

Ethiopia

Type 2 diabetes; > 18 years

138

FBG

Controlled (FPG:80–130 mg/dl)

 ≥ 10 years

Odds Ratio

2.6

0.85

8.23

No significant relationship between duration of 10 years and more, and glycaemic control

5–10 years

0.5

0.17

1.53

No significant relationship between duration of 5–10 years and glycaemic control

Fekadu [39]

2019

Cross-sectional

Ethiopia

Type 2 diabetes; 18–86 years

228

FBG

Good control (FBG: 70–130 mg/dL); poor control (< 70 mg/dL and > 130 mg/dL)

Duration of treatment

Treatment ˃ 10 years

Odds Ratio

3.94

1.51

27.83

Longer duration of diabetes treatment  > 10 years was significantly associated with poor glycaemic control (p:0.012)

Treatment 5–10 years

1.19

1.06

26.24

Duration of treatment of 5–10 years was not associated with glycaemic control (p:0.642)

Rwegerera [73]

2019

Cross-sectional

Botswana

Type 2 diabetes

368

HbA1c

desirable (< 7%); suboptimal (7–9%); poor (≥ 9%)

Treatment ˂ 3 years

Odds Ratio

1.54

0.68

3.45

Being on treatment at block 6 Clinic few than 3 yrs was not associated with glycaemic control

Shimels [75]

2018

Cross-sectional

Ethiopia

Type 2 diabetes;  ≥ 18 years

361

FPG

Good control (FPG: 100–130 mg/dl)

Treatment ≥ 11 years

Odds Ratio

0.83

0.37

1.83

Treatment duration ≥ 11 yrs was not significantly associated with glycaemic control

Treatment 6–10 years

0.82

0.43

1.56

Treatment duration 6–10 yrs was not significantly associated with glycaemic control

Yigazu [85]

2017

Cross-sectional

Ethiopia

Type 2 diabetes; 18–80 years

174

FBG

Controlled (average FBG: 80–130 mg/dL); Uncontrolled (average FBG > 130 or < 70 mg/dL)

Treatment ˂5 years

Odds Ratio

2.03

0.85

4.84

Duration of treatment < 5 years was not significantly associated with glycaemic control

Mphwanthe [61]

2020

Cross-sectional

Malawi

Type 2 diabetes;  ≥ 25 years

428

HbA1c

Poor control (HbA1c ≥ 8%)

Self-report of glycaemic control

Fluctuating/unstable blood glucose levels

ß coefficient

1.760

1.479

2.041

Always having fluctuating/unstable blood glucose levels (p: < .001) was significantly associated with poor glycaemic control (p: < .001)

Mphwanthe [61]

2020

Cross-sectional

Malawi

Type 2 diabetes;  ≥ 25 years

428

HbA1c

Poor control (HbA1c ≥ 8%)

No improvement of blood glucose levels from diagnosis

ß coefficient

0.968

0.621

1.307

Having blood glucose levels not improved from diagnosis was significantly associated with poor glycaemic control (p:0.004)

Mamo [53]

2019

Case–control

Ethiopia

Type 2 diabetes with poor glycemic control (cases) and without good glycemic control (controls); > 18 years

410

FBG

Good control (average fasting blood glucose of 80–130 mg/dL); poor control (average fasting blood glucose of > 130 mg/dL)

Presence of comorbidities

Presence of comorbidities

Odds Ratio

2.56

1.10

5.96

The presence of comorbidity was significantly associated with poor glycaemic control

Shimels [75]

2018

Cross-sectional

Ethiopia

Type 2 diabetes;  ≥ 18 years

361

FPG

Glycemic control (FPG: 100–130 mg/dl)

Odds Ratio

0.16

0.09

0.27

The presence of comorbidity was significantly associated with poor glycaemic control

Tefera [77]

2010

Cross-sectional

Ethiopia

Type 2 diabetes;  ≥ 18 years

400

FPG

Controlled (FPG:80–130 mg/dl)

Odds Ratio

0.33

0.15

0.73

The presence of morbidity was significantly associated with poor glycaemic control

Yosef [87]

2021

Cross-sectional

Ethiopia

Type 2 diabetes;  ≥ 18 years

245

FBG

Good control (FBG:70–130 mg/dL)

Odds Ratio

1.61

0.8

3.22

The presence of comorbidity was significantly associated with poor glycaemic control

Botchway [31]

2021

Cross-sectional

Ghana

Type 2 diabetes; ≥ 18 years

254

HbA1c

No threshold

Number of comorbidities

Number of comorbidities

ß coefficient

0.15

− 0.13

0.43

The number of type 2 diabetes comorbidities was not significantly associated with glycaemic control

Otieno [69]

2017

Cross-sectional

Kenya

Type 2 diabetes;  ≥ 30 years

220

HbA1c

Good control (HbA1c ≤ 7%); poor/suboptimal (HbA1c > 7%)

Having 1 comorbidity in comorbid depression

Odds Ratio

1.6

0.2

15.1

In patients with depression, having 1 comorbidity was not significantly associated with glycaemic control

Having 2 or more in comorbid depression

1.4

0.4

5.7

In patients with depression, having 2 or more comorbidities was not significantly associated with glycaemic control

Having 1 comorbidity in patients without depression

1.1

0.3

4.1

In patients without depression, having 1 comorbidity was not significantly associated with glycaemic control

Having 2 or more in patients without depression

5.2

0.6

43.1

In patients wihtout depression, having 2 or more comorbidities was not significantly associated with glycaemic control

Achila [17]

2020

Cross-sectional

Eritrea

Type 2 diabetes; 20–88 years

309

HbA1c

Poor control (HbA1c ≥ 7%)

Hypertension

Absence of hypertension

Odds Ratio

1.94

1.06

3.56

The absence of hypertension was significantly associated with poor glycaemic control

BeLue [27]

2016

Cross-sectional

Senegal

Type 2 diabetes

106

HbA1c

Glycemic control (HbA1c < 7%)

ß coefficient

0.76

− 0.18

1.7

The absence of hypertension was not significantly with glycaemic control

Eticha [36]

2016

Cross- sectional

Ethiopia

Type 2 diabetes;  ≥ 18 years

384

HbA1c

Good control (HbA1c < 7%); poor control (HbA1c ≥ 7%)

Presence of hypertension

Odds Ratio

2.2

1.1

4.4

The presence of hypertension was associated significantly with poor glycaemic control

Mobula [58]

2018

Cross- sectional

Ghana

hypertensive and Type 2 diabetes; ≥ 18 years

1226

HbA1c

Poor control (HBA1c ≥ 7%)

Odds Ratio

0.69

0.50

0.95

Dual diagnosis of diabetes and hypertension was significantly associated with good glycaemic control

Demoz [34]

2019

Cross-sectional

Ethiopia

Type 2 diabetes;  ≥ 18 years

357

HbA1c and FBG

Adequate control ( average fasting blood glucose 70–130 mg/dL or HbA1c < 7%); Poor control (average fasting blood glucose > 130 or < 70 mg/dL or HbA1c > 7%)

Uncontrolled blood pressure

Odds Ratio

4.51

0.89

1.94

Uncontrolled BP was not found significantly associated with glycaemic control

Rwegerera [73]

2019

Cross-sectional

Ethiopia

Type 2 diabetes

368

HbA1c

Desirable (< 7%); suboptimal (7–9%); poor (≥ 9%)

 

Odds Ratio

1.04

0.67

1.59

Uncontrolled BP was not found significantly associated with glycaemic control

Anioke [22]

2019

Cross-sectional

Nigeria

Type 2 diabetes; ≥ 30 years

140

HbA1c

Good control (HbA1c < 7%); poor control (HbA1c ≥ 7%)

High systolic blood pressure

Odds Ratio

1.01

0.98

1.05

High systolic blood pressure was not significantly associated with glycaemic control

Mwita [65]

2019

Cross-sectional

Botswana

Type 2 diabetes;  ≥ 18 years

500

HbA1c

Optimal glycaemic (HbA1c < 7%)

Optimal hypertension

Odds Ratio

1.61

0.63

4.13

Optimal hypertension control was not significantly associated with glycaemic control

Adeniyi [18]

2016

Cross-sectional

South Africa

Type 2 diabetes; ≥ 30 years at diagnostic of diabetes

327

HbA1c

Good control (HbA1c ≤ 7%); poor control (HbA1c > 7%); moderately poor (HbA1c = 7–8.9%); critically poor (HbA1c ≥ 9%)

Dyslipidemia

Elevated LDL

Odds Ratio

10.3

4.4

23.8

Elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol was significantly associated with poor glycaemic control

Demoz [34]

2019

Cross-sectional

Ethiopia

Type 2 diabetes;  ≥ 18 years

357

HbA1c and FBG

Adequate control ( average fasting blood glucose 70–130 mg/dL or HbA1c < 7%); Poor control (average fasting blood glucose > 130 or < 70 mg/dL or HbA1c > 7%)

Poor lipid control

Odds Ratio

2.13

0.57

1.34

Poor lipid control was not significantly associated with glycaemic control

Eticha [36]

2016

Cross- sectional

Ethiopia

Type 2 diabetes;  ≥ 18 years

384

HbA1c

Good control (HbA1c < 7%); poor control (HbA1c ≥ 7%)

Presence of dyslipidemia

Odds Ratio

1.5

0.8

2.8

Presence of dyslipidemia was not significantly associated with glycaemic control

Mamo [53]

2019

Case–control

Ethiopia

Type 2 diabetes with poor glycemic control (cases) and without good glycemic control (controls); > 18 years

410

FBG

Good control (average fasting blood glucose of 80–130 mg/dL); poor control (average fasting blood glucose of > 130 mg/dL)

High Total Cholesterol

Odds Ratio

3.62

1.46

8.97

Total cholesterol ≥ 200 mg/dl was significantly associated with poor glycaemic control

Mwita [65]

2019

Cross-sectional

Botswana

Type 2 diabetes;  ≥ 18 years

500

HbA1c

Optimal glycaemic (HbA1c < 7%)

Optimal LDL-C control

Odds Ratio

2.20

0.64

7.57

Optimal LDL-C-control was not significantly associated with glycaemic control

Noor [66]

2017

Cross-sectional

Sudan

Type 2 diabetes

387

HbA1c

Controlled < 7% Uncontrolled > 7%

Elevated Triglycerides

Odds Ratio

0.879

0.353

2.188

TG level > 150 was not significantly associated with glycaemic control

Woldu [83]

2014

Cross-sectional

Ethiopia

Type 2 diabetes

102

FBG

Poor control (FBG level of > 126 mg/dl)

Hyperlipidemia

Odds Ratio

5

1.145

20.462

Hyperlipidemia was significantly associated with poor glycaemic control

Abebe [89]

2022

Cross-sectional

Ethiopia

Type diabetes, > 18 years

138

FBG

Good control (mean FBG:80–130 mg/dl); poor control (FBG < 80 mg/dl or > 130 mg/dl)

Body mass index

Obesity

Odds Ratio

4.1

1.2

14.11

Significant association between being obesity and poor glycaemic control

Overweight

Odds Ratio

1.7

0.49

6.32

No significant association between being overweight and poor glycaemic control

Adeniyi [18]

2016

Cross-sectional

South Africa

Type 2 diabetes;  ≥ 30 years at diagnostic of diabetes

327

HbA1c

Good control (HbA1c ≤ 7%); poor control (HbA1c > 7%); moderately poor (HbA1c = 7–8.9%); critically poor (HbA1c ≥ 9%)

Overweight/obesity

Odds Ratio

22.3

1.9

261.2

Overweight/obesity was significantly associated with poor glycaemic control

BeLue [27]

2016

Cross-sectional

Senegal

Type 2 diabetes

106

HbA1c

Glycemic control (HbA1c < 7%)

BMI

ß coefficient

− 0.10

− 0.17

− 0.03

BMI was not significantly associated with glycaemic control

Demoz [34]

2019

Cross-sectional

Ethiopia

Type 2 diabetes;  ≥ 18 years

357

HbA1c and FBG

Adequate control ( average fasting blood glucose 70–130 mg/dL or HbA1c < 7%); Poor control (average fasting blood glucose > 130 or < 70 mg/dL or HbA1c > 7%)

Obesity

Odds Ratio

1.68

1.01

2.55

Obesity was singificantly associated with poor glycaemic control

Overweight

3.51

1.82

4.01

Being overweight was not significantly associated with glycaemic control

Eticha [35]

2016

Cross- sectional

Ethiopia

Type 2 diabetes;  ≥ 18 years

384

HbA1c

Good control (HbA1c < 7%); poor control (HbA1c ≥ 7%)

Normal BMI

Odds Ratio

0.3

0.1

1.8

Having a normal BMI was not significantly associated with glycaemic control

Overweight

0.8

0.1

4.6

Being overweight was not significantly associated with glycaemic control

Kamuhabwa [47]

2014

Cross- sectional

Tanzania

Type 2 diabetes;  ≥ 18 years

469

FBG

Good control (FBG ≤ 130 mg/dL or 7.2 mmol/L); poor control (FBG > 130 mg/dL or 7.2 mmol/L)

Obesity

Odds Ratio

2.347

1.274

4.324

Being obese was significantly associated with poor glycaemic control

Normal BMI

2.234

1.278

3.904

Having a normal BMI was significantly associated with poor glycaemic control

Mphwanthe [61]

2020

Cross- sectional

Malawi

Type 2 diabetes;  ≥ 25 years

428

HbA1c

HbA1c clinically elevated ≥ 8%

Underweight

ß coefficient

2.330

1.645

3.015

Underweight status was significantly associated with poor glycaemic control (p: .001)

Overweight/obesity

− 0.143

− 0.419

0.133

Overweight/obese status was not significantly associated with glycaemic control (p: .605)

Otieno [69]

2017

Cross-sectional

Kenya

Type 2 diabetes;  ≥ 30 years

220

HbA1c

Good control (HbA1c ≤ 7%); poor/suboptimal (HbA1c > 7%)

Overweight/obesity in patients with depression

Odds Ratio

1.7

0.4

6.5

In patients with depression, being overweight/obese (AOR:1.7 (0.4–6.5)) was not significantly associated with glycaemic control

Overweight/obesity in patients without depression

2.0

1.0

4.0

In patients without depression, being overweight/obese was significantly associated with poor glycaemic control

Rwegerera [73]

2019

Cross-sectional

Botswana

Type 2 diabetes

368

HbA1c

Desirable (< 7%); suboptimal (7–9%); poor (≥ 9%)

Overweight/ Obese

Odds Ratio

1.38

0.53

3.59

Being overweight/obese was not significantly associated with glycaemic control

Yosef [87]

2021

Cross-sectional

Ethiopia

Type 2 diabetes;  ≥ 18 years

245

FBG

Good control (FBG:70–130 mg/dL)

Overweight

Odds Ratio

2.6

1.32

5.1

Being overweight was not significantly associated with poor glycaemic control

Obese

Odds Ratio

3.44

1.44

8.21

Being obese was not significantly associated with poor glycaemic control

Achila [17]

2020

Cross-sectional

Eritrea

Type 2 diabetes; 20–88 years

309

HbA1c

Poor control (HbA1c ≥ 7%)

WHR/WC

Abnormal WHR

Odds Ratio

3.01

1.15

7.92

Abnormal WHR was associated significantly with poor glycaemic control

Anioke [22]

2019

Cross-sectional

Nigeria

Type 2 diabetes;  ≥ 30 years

140

HbA1c

Good control (HbA1c < 7%); poor control (HbA1c ≥ 7%)

Low WHR

Odds Ratio

2.65

0.42

16.88

Low WHR was not significantly associated with glycaemic control

Medium WHR

 

1.82

0.47

6.98

Medium WHR was not significantly associated with glycaemic control

BeLue [27]

2016

Cross-sectional

Senegal

Type 2 diabetes

106

HbA1c

Glycemic control (HbA1c < 7%)

Waist circumference

ß coefficient

0.04

0.03

0.05

Waist circumference was not significantly associated with glycaemic control

Blum [30]

2019

Cross-sectional

D R Congo

Type 2 diabetes;  ≥ 18 years

319

HbA1c

Poor control (HbA1c ≥ 9%)

Abdominal obesity

Odds Ratio

0.61

0.33

1.12

Abdominal obesity was not significantly associated with glycaemic control

Mamo [53]

2019

Case–control

Ethiopia

Type 2 diabetes with poor glycemic control (cases) and without good glycemic control (controls); > 18 years

410

FBG

Good control (average fasting blood glucose of 80–130 mg/dL); poor control (average fasting blood glucose of > 130 mg/dL)

High WHR

Odds Ratio

3.52

1.23

10.11

Waist to hip ratio of 0.9 or greater for male and 0.85 or greater for female was significantly associated with poor glycaemic control

Mashele [56]

2019

Cross-sectional

South Africa

Type 2 diabetes; 35–74 years

176

HbA1c

Optimal control (HbA1c < 7%); poor control (HbA1c ≥ 7%)

Increased WC

Odds Ratio

1.089

1.030

1.151

Increased waist circumference was significantly associated with poor glycaemic control

Adejumo [17]

2012

cross-sectional

Nigeria

type 2 diabetes with normal renal function; ≥ 18 years

72

HbA1c

good control (HbA1c ≤ 7.5%); poor control (HbA1c > 7.5%)

Other comorbidities

Incidence of anaemia

Odds Ration

10.8

1.28

91.20

Incidence of aneamia was significantly associated with poor glycemic Control (p < 0.05)

Afolabi [19]

2018

cross-sectional

Nigeria

type 2 diabetes; 40–80 years

80

HbA1c

Good control (< 7%); poor control (≥ 7%)

Presence of Non Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease

Odds Ratio

3.473

1.017

11.864

Non alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease was sgnificantly associated with poor glycaemic control (p:0.047)

Akabwai [20]

2016

Cross-sectional

Uganda

Type 2 diabetes; ≥ 18 years

280

HbA1c

Good control (< 7%); poor control (≥ 7%)

Presence of vitamin B12 deficiency

Odds Ratio

3.29

1.44

7.51

Presence of vitamin B12 deficiency was significantly associated with poor glycaemic control (p: 0.005))

Akpalu [21]

2018

Cross-sectional

Ghana

Type 2 diabetes; 30–65 years

400

HbA1c

Good control (HbA1c < 7%)

Presence of depression

Odds Ratio

1.04

0.85

2.29

Presence of depression was not significantly associated with glycaemic control

Biadgo [28]

2018

Cross- sectional

Ethiopia

Type 2 diabetes

159

FBS

Adequate control (FBS ≤ 130 mg/dl); poor control (FBS > 130 mg/dl)

Metabolic syndrome

Odds Ratio

2.53

1.01

6.32

Metabolic syndrome (IDF criteria) was significantly associated with poor glycaemic control

Dagnew [33]

2017

Comparative Cross-sectional

Ethiopia

Type 2 diabetes and healthy relatives; ≥ 30 years

210

FBG

FBG < 126 mg/dl versus FBG ≥ 126 mg/dl

Presence of cognitive impairment

Odds Ratio

4.43

1.14

17.18

Poor glycaemic control was significantly associated with the presence of cognitive impairment

Kalain [46]

2015

Cross- sectional

South Africa

Type 2 diabetes; ≥ 18 years

200

HbA1c

Good control (HbA1c < 7%)

Presence of Congestive Cardiac Failure (CCF)

Odds Ratio

3.172564

  

Presence of CCF was associated with glycaemic control (p:0.035); 95% CI not provided

Khoza [50]

2018

Case control

South Africa

Type 2 diabetes; > 30 years

320

HbA1c and glucose

No threshold

HIV infection

β coefficient

0.040

  

HIV-positive was significantly associated with poor glycaemic control (p:0.01); 95% CI not provided

Odds Ratio

4.29

1

18.32

HIV-negative status was not associated with glycaemic control

Sarfo-Kantanka [74]

2017

Case–control

Ghana

Type 2 diabetes; 40–80 years

302

FBG and HbA1c

No threshold

Thyroid autoimmunity

Odds Ratio

1.46

1.23

1.73

Poor glycaemic control (p < 0.0001) was significantly associated with thyroid autoimmunity (p < 0.0001)

Woldu [83]

2014

Cross-sectional

Ethiopia

Type 2 diabetes

102

FBG

Poor control (FBG level of > 126 mg/dl)

Presence of dyspesia

Odds Ratio

4

0.026

6.000

Presence of dyspepsia was not significantly associated with glycaemic control

Demoz [34]

2019

Cross-sectional

Ethiopia

Type 2 diabetes;  ≥ 18 years

357

HbA1c and FBG

Adequate control ( average fasting blood glucose 70–130 mg/dL or HbA1c < 7%); Poor control (average fasting blood glucose > 130 or < 70 mg/dL or HbA1c > 7%)

Complications

Presence of complications

Odds Ratio

2.0

0.69

1.06

Presence of complications was not associated with glycaemic control

Rwegerera [73]

2019

Cross-setctional

Ethiopia

Type 2 diabetes

368

HbA1c

desirable (< 7%); suboptimal (7–9%); poor (≥ 9%)

Odds Ratio

0.76

0.44

1.3

Absence of complication was not associated with glycaemic control

Tefera [77]

2020

Cross-sectional

Ethiopia

Type 2 diabetes; ≥ 18 years

400

FPG

Controlled (FPG:80–130 mg/dl)

Odds Ratio

0.77

0.26

2.34

Presence of complications was not significantly associated with glycaemic control

Eticha [36]

2016

Cross-sectional

Ethiopia

Type 2 diabetes;  ≥ 18 years

384

HbA1c

Good control (HbA1c < 7%); poor control (HbA1c ≥ 7%)

Presence of renal disease

Odds Ratio

0.9

0.4

2.2

Presence of renal disease was not significantly associated with glycaemic control

Eticha [36]

2016

Cross-sectional

Ethiopia

Type 2 diabetes;  ≥ 18 years

384

HbA1c

Good control (HbA1c < 7%); poor control (HbA1c ≥ 7%)

Presence of DKA

Odds Ratio

2.6

0.9

7.1

Presence of DKA was not significantly associated with glycaemic control

Woldu [83]

2014

Cross-sectional

Ethiopia

Type 2 diabetes

102

FBG

Poor control (FBG level of > 126 mg/dl)

Odds Ratio

0.6

0.015

22.402

Presence of DKA was not significantly associated with glycaemic control

Eticha [36]

2016

Cross-sectional

Ethiopia

Type 2 diabetes;  ≥ 18 years

384

HbA1c

Good control (HbA1c < 7%); poor control (HbA1c ≥ 7%)

Presence of peripheral neuropathy

Odds Ratio

1.1

0.5

2.2

Presence of peripheral neuropathy was not significantly associated with glycaemic control

Woldu [83]

2014

Cross-sectional

Ethiopia

Type 2 diabetes

102

FBG

Poor control (FBG level of > 126 mg/dl)

Odds Ratio

579

116.8

2870

Presence of peripheral neuropathy was significanty associated with poor glycaemic control

Mohamed [59]

2013

Case–control

Sudan

Type 2 diabetes and non-diabetic controls

457

HbA1c

Well-controlled (HbA1c < 8%); poorly controlled (HbA1c > 8%)

High levels of mobility index

Odds Ratio

2.60

1.21

5.55

Poor glycaemic control was significantly associated with high levels of mobility index

Gebremedhin [42]

2019

Cross-sectional

Ethiopia

Type 2 diabetes; ≥ 18 years

267

FBG

No threshold

Examination findings

Health related quality of life

ß coefficient

− 0.08

− 0.12

− 0.04

Overall health related quality of life was inversely associated and FBG (p < 0.001)

Oyewole [70]

2019

Cross-sectional

Nigeria

Type 2 diabetes; ≥ 21 years

162

HbA1c and FBG

No threshold

Global disability burden

ß coefficient

0.061

0.057

0.067

Disability burden was significantly associated with poor glycaemic control (p: 0.0001)

Ramkisson [72]

2016

Cross-sectional

South Africa

Type 2 diabetes; ≥ 18 years

401

HbA1c

No threshold

Diabetes related distress

Odds Ratio

1.04

1.00

1.09

Diabetes related distress was not significantly associated with glycaemic control

Achila [17]

2020

Cross-sectional

Eritrea

Type 2 diabetes; 20–88 years

309

HbA1c

Poor control (HbA1c ≥ 7%)

Laboratory findings

estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate (eGFR)

Odds Ratio

0.99

0.98

1

A unit reduction in eGFR was also associated with HbA1c ≥ 7% (p:0:031))

Mwita [65]

2019

Cross-sectional

Botswana

Type 2 diabetes;  ≥ 18 years

500

HbA1c

Optimal glycaemic (HbA1c < 7%)

Odds Ratio

1.00

0.99

1.02

No significant association between eGFR and glycaemic control (p: 0.412)

Inih [45]

2018

Cross-sectional

Nigeria

Type 2 diabetes; men

164

HbA1c

Poor control (HbA1c > 7%)

Hypogonadism

Odds Ratio

3.85

0.13

0.55

Poor glycaemic control was significantly associated with hypogonadism (p < 0.001)

Low sperm count

0.118

− 5.85

5.61

No significant association between low sperm count with HbA1c (p:0.97)

  1. HbA1c Haemoglobin A1c, FBG Fasting blood glucose, FBS Fasting blood sugar, FPG Fasting plasma glucose