ArticleDiabetology & metabolic syndrome2019
Quality indicators in type 2 diabetes patient care: analysis per care-complexity level.
Article in Diabetology & metabolic syndrome, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Development of key performance indicators for a telemedicine setting in Egypt using an electronic modified Delphi approach.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- [Implementation of hypertension and diabetes care pathways in two regions of the Brazilian NortheastImplementación de las líneas de cuidado para la hipertensión y la diabetes en dos regiones del nordeste brasileño].Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health · 2025Article
- Advancing healthcare with artificial intelligence: diagnostic accuracy of machine learning algorithm in diagnosis of diabetic retinopathy in the Brazilian population.Diabetology & metabolic syndrome · 2024Article
- Cardiovascular Statistics - Brazil 2023.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2024Article
- Cardiovascular Statistics - Brazil 2021.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2022Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study was developed to evaluate quality indicators in type 2 diabetes patient care at the Unified Public Health System's primary and tertiary health care centers within a local population.
methodsThis was a retrospective cohort of 488 patients with type 2 diabetes (148 in each primary health care unit, ESF and UBS, and 192 at the tertiary health care unit) with a 1-year follow-up to evaluate the following care quality indicators: nephropathy, neuropathy and retinopathy tests, yearly lipid profile and nutritional assessments, and an inquiry about tobacco use. The presence of > 50% of the quality of care assessment measures was considered acceptable. Indicators were also evaluated in relation to patients without proper diabetes control (HbA1c > 8.5%).
resultsIn the results, a high percentage of patients were excluded specifically for not presenting the two HbA1c tests within a year (n = 208, 58.1% at ESF; n = 225, 58.4% at UBS; and n = 39, 16.9% at the tertiary health care unit). From the included patients, only 7 (4.7%) at ESF, 7 (4.7%) at UBS, and 52 (27.0%) at the tertiary health care unit showed > 50% of the quality criteria covered. When only patients without proper diabetes control were evaluated, none of them at any of the health care units showed all the quality criteria covered.
conclusionsOur results show a low percentage of care assessment measures at each evaluated health care unit, pointing out the need to improve the protocols and care lines of diabetic patients.
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.