Trial reportJournal of general internal medicine2005
Patients and computers as reminders to screen for diabetes in family practice. Randomized-controlled trial.
Trial report in Journal of general internal medicine, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
26 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A theory-based meta-regression of factors influencing clinical decision support adoption and implementation.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2021Pooled it
- Patient-mediated interventions to improve professional practice.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Are interventions to increase the uptake of screening for cardiovascular disease risk factors effective? A systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC family practice · 2017Pooled it
- Clinical Decision Support Systems and Prevention: A Community Guide Cardiovascular Disease Systematic Review.American journal of preventive medicine · 2015Pooled it
- Screening with urinary dipsticks for reducing morbidity and mortality.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015Pooled it
- Changing clinical practice through patient specific reminders available at the time of the clinical encounter: systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of general internal medicine · 2012Pooled it
- Impact of electronic medical record on physician practice in office settings: a systematic review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2012Pooled it
- Computerized clinical decision support systems for primary preventive care: a decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review of effects on process of care and patient outcomes.Implementation science : IS · 2011Pooled it
- Effect of point-of-care computer reminders on physician behaviour: a systematic review.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2010Pooled it
- The effects of on-screen, point of care computer reminders on processes and outcomes of care.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2009Pooled it
- The effect of feedback to general practitioners on quality of care for people with type 2 diabetes. A systematic review of the literature.BMC family practice · 2009Pooled it
- Evaluation of two strategies to implement physical cancer rehabilitation guidelines for survivors of abdominopelvic cavity tumors: a controlled before-and-after study.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2022Article
- Clinical Decision Support Systems for Diagnosis in Primary Care: A Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Efficiency over thoroughness in laboratory testing decision making in primary care: findings from a realist review.BJGP open · 2021Article
- Do electronic reminders alter recorded diagnoses in primary care office-hours practices of health centers: A register-based study in a Finnish city.SAGE open medicine · 2021Article
- Development and use of a clinical decision support tool for behavioral health screening in primary care clinics.Applied clinical informatics · 2017Article
- The Need for Patient Follow-up Strategies to Confirm Diabetes Mellitus in Large Scale Opportunistic Screening.Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR · 2016Review
- Evaluation and Use of Registry Data in a GIS Analysis of Diabetes.AIMS public health · 2015Article
- Effect of mobile reminders on screening yield during opportunistic screening for type 2 diabetes mellitus in a primary health care setting: A randomized trial.Preventive medicine reports · 2015Article
- Use of health information technology to reduce diagnostic errors.BMJ quality & safety · 2013Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn New Zealand, more than 5% of people aged 50 years and older have undiagnosed diabetes; most of them attend family practitioners (FPs) at least once a year.
objectivesTo test the effectiveness of patients or computers as reminders to screen for diabetes in patients attending FPs.
designA randomized-controlled trial compared screening rates in 4 intervention arms: patient reminders, computer reminders, both reminders, and usual care. The trial lasted 2 months. The patient reminder was a diabetes risk self-assessment sheet filled in by patients and given to the FP during the consultation. The computer reminder was an icon that flashed only for patients considered eligible for screening.
participantsOne hundred and seven FPs. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was whether each eligible patient, who attended during the trial, was or was not tested for blood glucose. Analysis was by intention to treat and allowed for clustering by FP.
resultsPatient reminders (odds ratio [OR] 1.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.21, 2.43), computer reminders (OR 2.55, 1.68, 3.88), and both reminders (OR 1.69, 1.11, 2.59) were all effective compared with usual care. Computer reminders were more effective than patient reminders (OR 1.49, 1.07, 2.07). Patients were more likely to be screened if they visited the FP repeatedly, if patients were non-European, if they were "regular" patients of the practice, and if their FP had a higher screening rate prior to the study.
conclusionsPatient and computer reminders were effective methods to increase screening for diabetes. However, the effects were not additive.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.