ArticleCroatian medical journal2008
Medical audit of diabetes mellitus in primary care setting in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Article in Croatian medical journal, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diabetology Care During COVID-19 Lockdown in Bosnia and Herzegovina - Diabetologists and Patients Perspective.Materia socio-medica · 2020Article
- Toward Standardized Monitoring of Patients With Chronic Diseases in Primary Care Using Electronic Medical Records: Systematic Review.JMIR medical informatics · 2019Review
- Audit of diabetes mellitus among patients attending an employee health clinic at a tertiary care centre in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo assess the quality of diabetes care provided by family medicine teams in primary health centers in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BH) through a medical audit, addressing the extent to which clinical practice complied with pre-determined explicit criteria of long-term management.
methodRetrospective analysis included randomly selected medical records of patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus treated by 18 family medicine teams at 5 locations in BH, included in the Canadian International Development Agency/World Health Organization project "Strengthening health care systems in BH with focus on primary health care/family medicine model." Audit record form contained 24 questions on sex, age, diabetes type, body mass index (BMI), hypertension, family anamnesis, annual examinations (HbA1C, BMI, lipid profile or total cholesterol, blood creatinine, neurological examination, urinalysis for albuminuria, foot care, and examination of ocular fundus), smoking habits, alcohol consumption, patient education, prescribed insulin and other drugs, and patient's health care-seeking behavior. Standardized and record forms were returned anonymously with 99.3% response rate.
resultsRecords of 536 patients with diabetes were analyzed (64% women and 87% patients with diabetes mellitus type 2). Family medicine teams showed poor compliance with established criteria for diabetes control. Metabolic control (69.5%) was acceptable, but the level of monitoring complications of diabetes (foot and ocular fundus examined in 53.4% and 53% of patients, respectively) was low. There were also considerable variations in diabetes management between different centers as well as between the teams in the same center.
conclusionThe audit revealed deficiencies in the quality of diabetes care and variations in care provision between primary care teams. Clinical guidelines and continuing education about acceptable diabetes care should be developed and implemented in BH.
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.