Observational studyJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA
Use of IndiGO individualized clinical guidelines in primary care.
Observational study in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Design, effectiveness, and economic outcomes of contemporary chronic disease clinical decision support systems: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2022Pooled it
- Comprehensive process model of clinical information interaction in primary care: results of a "best-fit" framework synthesis.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2018Pooled it
- Improving diabetes prevention with benefit based tailored treatment: risk based reanalysis of Diabetes Prevention Program.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2015Trial
- Primary care utilisation, adherence to guideline-based pharmacotherapy and continuity of care in primary care patients with chronic diseases and multimorbidity - a cross-sectional study.BMC primary care · 2023Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine if IndiGO individualized clinical guidelines could be implemented in routine practice and assess their effects on care and care experience.
methodsMatched comparison observational design. IndiGO individualized guidelines, based on a biomathematical simulation model, were used in shared decision-making. Physicians and patients viewed risk estimates and tailored recommendations in a dynamic user interface and discussed them for 5-10 min. Outcome measures were prescribing and dispensing of IndiGO-recommended medications, changes in physiological markers and predicted 5-year risk of heart attack and stroke, and physician and patient perceptions.
results489 patients using IndiGO were 4.9 times more likely to receive a statin prescription than were matched usual care controls (p=0.015). No effect was observed on prescribing of antihypertensive medications, but IndiGO-using patients were more likely to pick up at least one dispensing (p<0.05). No significant changes were observed in blood pressure or serum lipid levels. Predicted risk of heart attack or stroke decreased 1.6% among patients using IndiGO versus 1.0% among matched controls (p<0.01). Physician and patient experiences were positive to neutral. LIMITATIONS: We could not assess the separate effects of individualized guidelines, user interface, and physician-patient discussions. Patient selection could have influenced results. The measure of risk reduction was not independent of the individualized guidelines.
conclusionsIndiGO individualized clinical guidelines were successfully implemented in primary care and were associated with increases in the use of cardioprotective medications and reduction in the predicted risk of adverse events, suggesting that a larger trial could be warranted.
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.