Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29177051›Full record

ArticleBMJ open diabetes research & care2017

Type 2 diabetes in general practice in Norway 2005-2014: moderate improvements in risk factor control but still major gaps in complication screening.

Åsne Bakke, John G Cooper, Geir Thue, Svein Skeie, Siri Carlsen, Ingvild Dalen, Karianne Fjeld Løvaas, Tone Vonheim Madsen, Ellen Renate Oord, Tore Julsrud Berg and 5 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open diabetes research & care, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing 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

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Effects on HbA1c of referral of type 2 diabetes patients to secondary care.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  20. 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

15 authors.

Åsne BakkeDepartment of Endocrinology, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-7069-6870
John G CooperDepartment of Endocrinology, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway.
Geir ThueDepartment of Global Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Svein SkeieDepartment of Research, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway.
Siri CarlsenDepartment of Endocrinology, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway.
Ingvild DalenDepartment of Research, Section of Biostatistics, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway.
Karianne Fjeld LøvaasNorwegian Quality Improvement of Laboratory Examinations, Haraldsplass Deaconess Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Tone Vonheim MadsenNorwegian Quality Improvement of Laboratory Examinations, Haraldsplass Deaconess Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Ellen Renate OordDepartment of Endocrinology, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway.
Tore Julsrud BergInstitute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Tor ClaudiDepartment of Medicine, Nordland Hospital, Bodø, Norway.
Anh Thi TranDepartment of General Practice, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Bjørn GjelsvikDepartment of General Practice, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Anne Karen JenumDepartment of General Practice, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Sverre SandbergDepartment of Global Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess the status of type 2 diabetes care in general practice and changes in the quality of care between 2005 and 2014, and to identify areas of diabetes care requiring improvement. RESEARCH DESIGN AND

methodsTwo cross-sectional surveys were performed that included patients with type 2 diabetes in selected areas (n=9464 in 2014, n=5463 in 2005). Quality of care was assessed based on key recommendations in national guidelines. Differences in clinical performance between 2005 and 2014 were assessed in regression models adjusting for age, sex, counties and clustering within general practices.

resultsTreatment targets were achieved in a higher proportion of patients in 2014 compared with 2005: hemoglobin A1c ≤7.0% (≤53 mmol/mol) in 62.8% vs 54.3%, blood pressure ≤135/80 mm Hg in 44.9% vs 36.6%, and total cholesterol ≤4.5 mmol/L in 49.9% vs 33.5% (all adjusted P≤0.001). Regarding screening procedures for microvascular complications, fewer patients had recorded an eye examination (61.0% vs 71.5%, adjusted P<0.001), whereas more patients underwent monofilament test (25.9% vs 18.7%, adjusted P<0.001). Testing for albuminuria remained low (30.3%) in 2014. A still high percentage were current smokers (22.7%).

conclusionsWe found moderate improvements in risk factor control for patients with type 2 diabetes in general practice during the last decade, which are similar to improvements reported in other countries. We report major gaps in the performance of recommended screening procedures to detect microvascular complications. The proportion of daily smokers remains high. We suggest incentives to promote further improvements in diabetes care in Norway.

Indexed as

family medicinemicrovascular and macrovascular complicationsrisk managementtype 2 diabetes

Identifiers

PMID29177051
PMCPMC5687527

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.