Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19581618›Full record

Trial reportCMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne2009

Individualized electronic decision support and reminders to improve diabetes care in the community: COMPETE II randomized trial.

Anne Holbrook, Lehana Thabane, Karim Keshavjee, Lisa Dolovich, Bob Bernstein, David Chan, Sue Troyan, Gary Foster, Hertzel Gerstein, COMPETE II Investigators

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00813085 (A Randomized Trial of Electronic Integration of Care for Better Diabetes Outcomes; The COMPETE II Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 116 papers, 29 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
116citing papers in PubMed, 29 pooled it
14.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT00813085 nacompletednot on this map

A Randomized Trial of Electronic Integration of Care for Better Diabetes Outcomes; The COMPETE II Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorMcMaster UniversityRan2002 to 2003Enrolled511ConditionsDiabetesArmsElectronic disease management decision support
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

116 citing papers in PubMed, 29 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 234 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Adult patient access to electronic health records.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Effect of telemedicine on glycated hemoglobin in diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2017
    Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

56 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Anne HolbrookDivision of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, McMaster University, Hamilton ON holbrook@mcmaster.ca
Lehana Thabane
Karim Keshavjee
Lisa Dolovich
Bob Bernstein
David Chan
Sue Troyan
Gary Foster
Hertzel Gerstein
COMPETE II Investigators
McMaster University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDiabetes mellitus is a complex disease with serious complications. Electronic decision support, providing information that is shared and discussed by both patient and physician, encourages timely interventions and may improve the management of this chronic disease. However, it has rarely been tested in community-based primary care.

methodsIn this pragmatic randomized trial, we randomly assigned adult primary care patients with type 2 diabetes to receive the intervention or usual care. The intervention involved shared access by the primary care provider and the patient to a Web-based, colour-coded diabetes tracker, which provided sequential monitoring values for 13 diabetes risk factors, their respective targets and brief, prioritized messages of advice. The primary outcome measure was a process composite score. Secondary outcomes included clinical composite scores, quality of life, continuity of care and usability. The outcome assessors were blinded to each patient's intervention status.

resultsWe recruited sequentially 46 primary care providers and then 511 of their patients (mean age 60.7 [standard deviation 12.5] years). Mean follow-up was 5.9 months. The process composite score was significantly better for patients in the intervention group than for control patients (difference 1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79-1.75, p < 0.001); 61.7% (156/253) of patients in the intervention group, compared with 42.6% (110/258) of control patients, showed improvement (difference 19.1%, p < 0.001). The clinical composite score also had significantly more variables with improvement for the intervention group (0.59, 95% CI 0.09-1.10, p = 0.02), including significantly greater declines in blood pressure (-3.95 mm Hg systolic and -2.38 mm Hg diastolic) and glycated hemoglobin (-0.2%). Patients in the intervention group reported greater satisfaction with their diabetes care.

interpretationA shared electronic decision-support system to support the primary care of diabetes improved the process of care and some clinical markers of the quality of diabetes care. (ClinicalTrials.gov trial register no. NCT00813085.).

Indexed as

InternetPhysicians, FamilyDecision Support Systems, ClinicalDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2FemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedOntarioPrevalencePrimary Health CareQuality Assurance, Health CareRetrospective StudiesTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID19581618
PMCPMC2704409
OpenAlexW2022174723

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.