Trial reportDiabetes care2013
Benchmarking is associated with improved quality of care in type 2 diabetes: the OPTIMISE randomized, controlled trial.
Trial report in Diabetes care, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05901155 (Impact of medAL-mentor, a Real-time Mentoring and Benchmarking Tool, on Antibiotic Prescription Among Children in Primary Health Care Facilities in Tanzania), which is not on this map. Cited by 29 papers, 5 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.
Impact of medAL-mentor, a Real-time Mentoring and Benchmarking Tool, on Antibiotic Prescription Among Children in Primary Health Care Facilities in Tanzania
Who cites it
29 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Identifying behaviour change techniques in 287 randomized controlled trials of audit and feedback interventions targeting practice change among healthcare professionals.Implementation science : IS · 2023Pooled it
- Quality improvement strategies for diabetes care: Effects on outcomes for adults living with diabetes.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- The contribution of benchmarking to quality improvement in healthcare. A systematic literature review.BMC health services research · 2022Pooled it
- Interventions to increase attendance for diabetic retinopathy screening.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Patient and physician factors influence decision-making in hypercholesterolemia: a questionnaire-based survey.Lipids in health and disease · 2015Trial
- Feedback GAP: pragmatic, cluster-randomized trial of goal setting and action plans to increase the effectiveness of audit and feedback interventions in primary care.Implementation science : IS · 2013Trial
- Age-specific effects of hemoglobin A1c, blood pressure, and cholesterol levels on incident cardiovascular diseases among adults with diabetes in China: a 10-year prospective cohort study.Life metabolism · 2026Article
- Assessing Clinical Inertia on Implementing Clinical Guideline Recommendations in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Clinician Survey Study.Diabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity : targets and therapy · 2026Article
- Quality indicators for pharmacist follow-up of diabetes mellitus: A RAND-modified Delphi method.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2025Article
- Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes Summit Recommendations on Implementation of Diabetes Management in CKD: From Primary to Data-Driven Collaborative Care.Kidney international reports · 2025Article
- Overcoming Therapeutic Inertia as the Achilles' Heel for Improving Suboptimal Diabetes Care: An Integrative Review.Endocrinology and metabolism (Seoul, Korea) · 2023Review
- HbA1c, blood pressure, and cholesterol control in adults with diabetes: A report card for Kuwait.Journal of diabetes investigation · 2022Article
- Generating and Reporting Electronic Clinical Quality Measures from Electronic Health Records: Strategies from EvidenceNOW Cooperatives.Applied clinical informatics · 2022Article
- Variability in the Control of Type 2 Diabetes in Primary Care and Its Association with Hospital Admissions for Vascular Events. The APNA Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- A nurse-led conceptual model to inform patient-centred, type 2 diabetes mellitus management in public clinical settings.Journal of research in nursing : JRN · 2021Article
- Benchmarking care outcomes for young adults with type 1 diabetes in Australia after transition to adult care.Endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism · 2021Article
- Establishment of the SingHealth Diabetes Registry.Clinical epidemiology · 2021Article
- Article
- Clinic and patient variation in intermediate clinical outcomes for type 2 diabetes: a multilevel analysis.BMC family practice · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess prospectively the effect of benchmarking on quality of primary care for patients with type 2 diabetes by using three major modifiable cardiovascular risk factors as critical quality indicators. RESEARCH DESIGN AND
methodsPrimary care physicians treating patients with type 2 diabetes in six European countries were randomized to give standard care (control group) or standard care with feedback benchmarked against other centers in each country (benchmarking group). In both groups, laboratory tests were performed every 4 months. The primary end point was the percentage of patients achieving preset targets of the critical quality indicators HbA1c, LDL cholesterol, and systolic blood pressure (SBP) after 12 months of follow-up.
resultsOf 4,027 patients enrolled, 3,996 patients were evaluable and 3,487 completed 12 months of follow-up. Primary end point of HbA1c target was achieved in the benchmarking group by 58.9 vs. 62.1% in the control group (P = 0.398) after 12 months; 40.0 vs. 30.1% patients met the SBP target (P < 0.001); 54.3 vs. 49.7% met the LDL cholesterol target (P = 0.006). Percentages of patients meeting all three targets increased during the study in both groups, with a statistically significant increase observed in the benchmarking group. The percentage of patients achieving all three targets at month 12 was significantly larger in the benchmarking group than in the control group (12.5 vs. 8.1%; P < 0.001).
conclusionsIn this prospective, randomized, controlled study, benchmarking was shown to be an effective tool for increasing achievement of critical quality indicators and potentially reducing patient cardiovascular residual risk profile.
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.