Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27061722›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2016

Risk stratification by endocrinologists of patients with type 2 diabetes in a Danish specialised outpatient clinic: a cross-sectional study.

Lene Munch, Anne B Arreskov, Michael Sperling, Dorthe Overgaard, Filip K Knop, Tina Vilsbøll, Michael E Røder

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

7 authors.

Lene MunchCenter for Diabetes Research, Gentofte Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Kildegårdsvej 28, DK-2900, Hellerup, Denmark.
Anne B ArreskovCenter for Diabetes Research, Gentofte Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Kildegårdsvej 28, DK-2900, Hellerup, Denmark.
Michael SperlingThe SAS Institute, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Dorthe OvergaardInstitute of Nursing, University College Metropol, Tagensvej 86, DK-2200, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Filip K KnopCenter for Diabetes Research, Gentofte Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Kildegårdsvej 28, DK-2900, Hellerup, Denmark.
Tina VilsbøllCenter for Diabetes Research, Gentofte Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Kildegårdsvej 28, DK-2900, Hellerup, Denmark.
Michael E RøderCenter for Diabetes Research, Gentofte Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Kildegårdsvej 28, DK-2900, Hellerup, Denmark. michael.einar.roeder@regionh.dk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AgedAmbulatory Care FacilitiesBiomarkersBlood PressureCross-Sectional StudiesDenmarkDiabetes ComplicationsDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2FemaleFollow-Up StudiesGlycated HemoglobinHealth Services ResearchHumansMaleQuality Assurance, Health CareRisk AssessmentBiomarkersGlycated Hemoglobinhemoglobin A1c protein, humanOrganising diabetes careOutpatient clinicRisk assessmentRisk stratificationType 2 diabetes

Identifiers

PMID27061722
PMCPMC4826533

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.