ArticleActa medica Lituanic2016
Quality of diabetes care at the largest outpatient clinics in Vilnius.
Article in Acta medica Lituanic, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEssential data on the quality of diabetes care needed for the development of National Diabetes Programme in Lithuania are lacking. The aim of the study was to assess the quality of diabetes care compared to the local guidelines in Vilnius, Lithuania. MATERIALS AND
methodsRetrospective data collection covering the period from 2012 to 2013 was performed in 5 Vilnius outpatient clinics assessing process and outcome indicators in type 1 (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) subjects.
resultsIn a sample of 1,719 patients (58.9% women, 92.6% T2DM) the annual HbA1c assessment rate was 88.6%. Glycaemic control was significantly better in T2DM compared to T1DM patients: average HbA1c was 7.0 ± 1.4% vs 9.1 ± 1.8% and HbA1c ≤ 7% in 59 vs 9.4%, respectively (
conclusionsThe analysis revealed good glycaemic control in T2DM, but insufficient in T1DM. Continuous monitoring of diabetes complications and cardiovascular risk factors did not meet the local Diabetes Care Guidelines.
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.