ArticleScandinavian journal of primary health care2009
The effect of screening on the prevalence of diagnosed type 2 diabetes in primary care.
Article in Scandinavian journal of primary health care, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Diabetes Screening Through Community Pharmacies in England: A Cost-Effectiveness Study.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
- A home-based method for the detection of impaired glucose tolerance in hypertensive primary care patients.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2014Article
- Registry-based diabetes risk detection schema for the systematic identification of patients at risk for diabetes in West Virginia primary care centers.Perspectives in health information managemen · 2013Article
- Prevalence of metabolic syndrome components among the elderly using three different definitions: a cohort study in Finland.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2012Article
- Similar cardiovascular risk factor profile in screen-detected and known type 2 diabetic subjects.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate to what extent differences in diagnosed diabetes prevalence can be attributed to differences in the general practitioner's (GP) screening activity.
designAn analysis of electronic patient files in combination with a survey among GPs. Setting. Ten primary healthcare centres with 44 GPs in the Netherlands. PATIENTS: General population (n = 58,919) and type 2 diabetic patients (n = 2582).
main outcome measuresEach GP filled in a questionnaire with questions concerning screening methods for diabetes. The presence of diabetes and date of diagnosis were determined. The potential confounding variables age, sex, and postal code (which we used to determine socioeconomic status) were retrieved from patient records.
resultsThe yearly point prevalence of diabetes increased significantly from 2.92% in 2000-2001 to 4.25% in 2005-2006 (p = 0.002). The incidence increased from 3.29/1000 person-years to 5.13/1000 person-years (p = 0.019). High screening activity of the general practitioner resulted in statistically significantly higher odds (1.35; p = 0.015) of being diagnosed as a patient with diabetes. The effect was independent of the influence of age, gender, and socioeconomic status.
conclusionScreening activity of the GP has a statistically significant and relevant influence on the prevalence of diagnosed diabetes. General practitioners should evaluate their screening activity to optimize the identification of diabetic patients.
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.