Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24615333›Full record

ReviewCurrent diabetes reports2014

Rational use of electronic health records for diabetes population management.

Emma M Eggleston, Michael Klompas

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current diabetes reports, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. The health data utility and the resurgence of health information exchanges as a national resource.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. [Electronic Medical Record for Prenatal Care of Diabetic Women].Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2016
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Emma M EgglestonDepartment of Population Medicine, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute and Harvard Medical School, 133 Brookline Avenue, Boston, MA, 02215, USA, emortoneggleston@partners.org.
Michael Klompas

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Population management is increasingly invoked as an approach to improve the quality and value of diabetes care. Recent emphasis is driven by increased focus on both costs and measures of care as the US moves from fee for service to payment models in which providers are responsible for costs incurred, and outcomes achieved, for their entire patient population. The capacity of electronic health records (EHRs) to create patient registries, apply analytic tools, and facilitate provider- and patient-level interventions has allowed rapid evolution in the scope of population management initiatives. However, findings on the efficacy of these efforts for diabetes are mixed, and work remains to achieve the full potential of an-EHR based population approach. Here we seek to clarify definitions and key domains, provide an overview of evidence for EHR-based diabetes population management, and recommend future directions for applying the considerable power of EHRs to diabetes care and prevention.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsPrimary Health CareAlgorithmsDiabetes Mellitus, Type 1Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2FemaleHumansInformation DisseminationMaleMedical Records Systems, ComputerizedPatient Care ManagementPractice Guidelines as TopicQuality ImprovementQuality of Health Care

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.