ArticlePloS one2019
Can diabetes patients seeking a second hospital get better care? Results from nested case-control study.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effects of continuity of care on health outcomes among patients with diabetes mellitus and/or hypertension: a systematic review.BMC family practice · 2021Pooled it
- Social determinants of health and type 2 diabetes in Asia.Journal of diabetes investigation · 2025Review
- Transfers between health facilities of people living with diabetes attending primary health care services in the Western Cape Province of South Africa: A retrospective cohort study.Tropical medicine & international health : TM & IH · 2024Article
- Correction: Can diabetes patients seeking a second hospital get better care? Results from nested case-control study.PloS one · 2024Article
- Impact of continuity of care on cardiovascular disease risk among newly-diagnosed hypertension patients.Scientific reports · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigates the effects of the number of medical institutions visited on risk of death. This study conducted a nested case-control design using the National Health Insurance Service-Senior database from 2002 to 2013. Cases were defined as those with death among outpatients who had first diagnosis of diabetes mellitus (E10-E14) after entry into the base cohort and controls were selected by incidence density sampling and matched to cases based on age, and sex. Our main results were presented by conditional logistic regression for nested case-controls design. Of total 55,558 final study samples, there were 9,313 (16.8%) cases and 46,245 (83.2%) controls. With an increase by one point in the number of hospitals per medical utilization, risk of death significantly increased by 4.1% (odds ratio (OR): 1.041, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.039-1.043). In both medical utilization and number of hospitals, those with high medical utilization (OR: 1.065, 95% CI: 1.059-1.070) and number of hospitals (OR: 1.049, 95% CI: 1.041-1.058) for risk of death were significantly higher than those with low medical utilization (OR: 1.040, 95% CI: 1.037-1.043) and number of hospitals (OR: 1.029, 95% CI: 1.027-1.032), respectively. The number of medical institution visited was significantly associated with risk of death. Therefore, diabetics should be warned about the potential of risk of death incurred from excessive access to medical utilizations.
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.