ArticleBMC health services research2016
Risk stratification by endocrinologists of patients with type 2 diabetes in a Danish specialised outpatient clinic: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC health services research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Trial
- Ibero-American position statement on therapeutic recommendations for the preventive management of cardiovascular complications in latin-American patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: consensus of the prevention council of the inter-American society of cardiology (SIAC-PREVENT).Diabetology & metabolic syndrome · 2026Review
- Transforming Motivation for Exercise in a Safe and Kind Environment-A Qualitative Study of Experiences among Individuals with Type 2 Diabetes.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Using electronic health records to develop and validate a machine-learning tool to predict type 2 diabetes outcomes: a study protocol.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Population Health Management in Diabetes Care: Combining Clinical Audit, Risk Stratification, and Multidisciplinary Virtual Clinics in a Community Setting to Improve Diabetes Care in a Geographically Defined Population. An Integrated Diabetes Care Pilot in the North East Locality, Oxfordshire, UK.International journal of integrated care · 2020Article
- Use of the Burden of Diabetes Mellitus Score for Cardiovascular Disease Risk Assessment.The American journal of cardiology · 2020Article
- 'I've put diabetes completely on the shelf till the mental stuff is in place'. How patients with doctor-assessed impaired self-care perceive disease, self-care, and support from general practitioners. A qualitative study.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2018Article
- 'More constricting than inspiring' - GPs find chronic care programmes of limited clinical utility. A qualitative study.BJGP open · 2018Article
- Disentangling Population Health Management Initiatives in Diabetes Care: A Scoping Review.International journal of integrated careArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo target optimised medical care the Danish guidelines for diabetes recommend stratification of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) into three levels according to risk and complexity of treatment. The aim was to describe the T2D population in an outpatient clinic, measure the compliance of the endocrinologists' to perform risk stratification, and investigate the level of concordance between stratification performed by the endocrinologists and objective assessments.
methodsA cross-sectional study with data collected from medical records and laboratory databases. The Danish risk stratification model contained the following criteria: HbA1c, blood pressure, metabolic complications, microvascular and macrovascular complications. Stratification levels encompassed: level 1 (uncomplicated), level 2 (intermediate risk) and level 3 (high risk). Objective assessments were conducted independently by two health professionals, and compared with the endocrinologists' assessments. In order to test the degree of concordance, we conducted Cohen's kappa, McNemar's test for marginal homogeneity, and Bowker's test for symmetry.
resultsOf 245 newly referred patients, 209 (85%) were stratified by the endocrinologists to level 1 (16%), level 2 (55%) and level 3 (29%). By objective assessments, 4% were stratified to level 1, 51% to level 2 and 45% to level 3. Of 419 long-term follow-up patients, 380 (91%) were stratified by the endocrinologists to level 1 (5%), level 2 (57%), level 3 (38%). By objective assessments, 3% were stratified to level 1, 58% to level 2 and 39% to level 3. The concordance rate between endocrinologists' and objective assessments was 63% among newly referred (kappa 0.39; fair agreement) and 67% for long-term follow-up (kappa 0.45; moderate agreement). Among newly referred patients, the endocrinologists stratified less patients at level 3 compared to objective assessments (p < 0.0001). There were no significant differences in marginal distribution within long-term follow-up patients.
conclusionType 2 diabetes patients, newly referred to or allocated for long-term follow-up in the out-patient clinic, were mainly intermediate and high-risk, complicated patients (96% and 95 %, respectively). Compliance of stratification by endocrinologists was high. The concordance between endocrinologists' and objective assessments was not strong. Our data suggest that clinician-support for stratification level categorisation might be needed.
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.