ArticleCureus2020
Implementation of Electronic Decision Support for Diabetic Care in a Student-Run Clinic.
Article in Cureus, 2020. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objectives Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a complex disease that can lead to complications. Electronic decision support in the electronic medical record (EMR) aids management. There is no study demonstrating the effectiveness of electronic decision support in assisting medical student providers in student-run free clinics. Methods There were 71 T2DM patients seen by medical students. Twenty-three encounters used a Diabetes Progress Note (DPN) that was created from consensus, opinion-based guidelines. Each note received a total composite score based on an eight-point scale for adherence to guidelines. Statistical comparisons between mean composite scores were performed using independent t-tests. Results The mean total composite score of DPN users was significantly greater than DPN non-users (5.35 vs. 4.23, p = 0.008), with a significant difference in the physical exam component (1.70 vs. 1.31, p = 0.002). Conclusions In this exploratory study, medical student providers at an attending-supervised, student-run free clinic that used electronic decision support during T2DM patient visits improved adherence to screening for diabetic complications and standard of care.
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.