Trial reportJournal of primary care & community health2017
Diabetic and Obese Patient Clinical Outcomes Improve During a Care Management Implementation in Primary Care.
Trial report in Journal of primary care & community health, 2017. The graph read 2 numbers from its abstract, feeding 1 cell of the map, but none could be read as for or against, so it casts no vote. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Read, but not usablea number the graph found but could not read as for or against
There was a 12% relative increase in the proportion of patients meeting the clinical target of A1c <7% (95% CI, 3%-20%), and 26% of obese nondiabetic patients in chronic care management practices lost 5% or more of their body weight as compared with 10% of comparison patients (adjusted relative improvement, 15%; CI, 2%-28%).
There was a 12% relative increase in the proportion of patients meeting the clinical target of A1c <7% (95% CI, 3%-20%), and 26% of obese nondiabetic patients in chronic care management practices lost 5% or more of their body weight as compared with 10% of comparison patients (adjusted relative improvement, 15%; CI, 2%-28%).
clause the extractor read what became the number
Where it lands on the map
Rows are treatments, columns are outcomes. The coloured squares are the cells this paper feeds, coloured by the vote it casts there. Click one to jump to what this paper adds to it.
What it adds to each cell
For every cell the paper feeds: the belief in the claim with and without this paper, and this paper's estimate drawn against every other readable study in the cell. The ringed dot is this paper.
Digital & care-delivery×body weight & composition
No readable resultOpen on the map →What to test next →No other readable study in this cell yet. This paper is the evidence.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Quality improvement strategies for diabetes care: Effects on outcomes for adults living with diabetes.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Dietitians' Perceptions of the Obesity Care Pathway: Qualitative Insights on Access, Follow-Up, and Referral of Patients Living With Obesity.Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association · 2026Article
- Multilevel Interventions Demonstrate Mixed Effectiveness for Improving Blood Pressure Outcomes: A Rapid Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- The Impact of Primary Care Practitioner Intervention as an Adjunct to a Diabetes Case Management System.The Permanente journal · 2023Article
- Understanding care coordination for Veterans with complex care needs: protocol of a multiple-methods study to build evidence for an effectiveness and implementation study.Frontiers in health services · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The marked sentences are the ones the graph read a number from.
backgroundTo address the increasing burden of chronic disease, many primary care practices are turning to care management and the hiring of care managers to help patients coordinate their care and self-manage their conditions. Care management is often, but not always, proving effective at improving patient outcomes, but more evidence is needed.
methodsIn this pair-matched cluster randomized trial, 5 practices implemented care management and were compared with 5 comparison practices within the same practice organization. Targeted patients included diabetic patients with a hemoglobin A1c >9% and nondiabetic obese patients. Clinical values tracked were A1c, blood pressure, low-density lipoprotein, microalbumin, and weight.
resultsClinically important improvements were demonstrated in the intervention versus comparison practices, with diabetic patients improving A1c control and obese patients experiencing weight loss. There was a 12% relative increase in the proportion of patients meeting the clinical target of A1c <7% (95% CI, 3%-20%), and 26% of obese nondiabetic patients in chronic care management practices lost 5% or more of their body weight as compared with 10% of comparison patients (adjusted relative improvement, 15%; CI, 2%-28%).
conclusionsThese findings add to the growing evidence-base for the effectiveness of care management as an effective clinical practice with regard to improving diabetes- and obesity-related outcomes.
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.