ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners1999
Collation and comparison of multi-practice audit data: prevalence and treatment of known diabetes mellitus.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 1999. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Implementing intensive control of blood glucose concentration and blood pressure in type 2 diabetes in England: cost analysis (UKPDS 63).BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2002Trial
- Article
- Inter-practice variation in diagnosing hypertension and diabetes mellitus: a cross-sectional study in general practice.BMC family practice · 2009Article
- Explaining variations in reported diabetes prevalence in general practice: how much variation is explained by differences between practice populations?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2003Article
- Influences on the variation in prevalence of type 2 diabetes between general practices: practice, patient or socioeconomic factors?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2003Article
- Features of primary care associated with variations in process and outcome of care of people with diabetes.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2001Article
- Glipizide. A review of the pharmacoeconomic implications of the extended-release formulation in type 2 diabetes mellitus.PharmacoEconomics · 2000Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDifferent methods have been used to determine the prevalence and treatment of diabetes. Despite the large number of studies, previous estimations of prevalence and treatment have been carried out on relatively small numbers of patients, and then in only a few practices in single geographical regions.
aimTo investigate the feasibility of collating data from multi-practice audits organized by primary care audit groups in order to estimate the prevalence and treatment of patients with known diabetes, and to discuss the methodological issues and reasons for variation.
methodA postal questionnaire survey of all primary care audit groups in England and Wales that had conducted a multi-practice audit of diabetes between 1993-1995. Prevalence rates and patterns of diabetic care were compared with other community-based surveys of known diabetes from 1986-1996 identified on MEDLINE.
resultsTwenty-five (43%) audit groups supplied data from multi-practice audits of diabetes. Seven (28%) multi-practice audits involving 259 practices fulfilled the inclusion criteria for prevalence estimation. The overall prevalence of diabetes based on a population of 1,475,512 patients was 1.46% (range between audit groups = 1.18% to 1.66%; chi 2 = 308; df = 6; P < 0.0001). Male to female ratio was 1.15:1. Treatment of diabetes could be ascertained for 10 (40%) audit groups comprising 319 practices. Of these, 23.4% (range = 16.5%-27.4%) were controlled by diet, 48.5% (range = 43.6%-55.8%) were prescribed oral hypoglycaemic drugs, and 28.2% (range = 25.0%-32.4%) were treated with insulin. There were significant variations between audit groups in treatment pattern (chi 2 = 250; df = 18; P < 0.0001).
conclusionPrevalence and treatment rates of diabetes and other chronic diseases can be assessed and compared using data from multi-practice audits. Collation of audit data could improve the precision of quantitative estimates of health status in populations. A standard method of data recording and collection may provide a new approach that could considerably improve our ability to monitor disease and its management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
10736888PMC1313423W2120720342What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.