ArticleJournal of diabetes2022
Differences in receipt of recommended eye examinations by comorbidity status and healthcare utilization among nonelderly adults with diabetes.
Article in Journal of diabetes, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing the Use of Administrative Claims with the Electronic Health Record Data for Identifying Diabetic Retinopathy Examinations.Ophthalmic epidemiology · 2025Article
- Differences in receipt of recommended eye examinations by comorbidity status and healthcare utilization among nonelderly adults with diabetes.Journal of diabetes · 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
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate the effect of diabetes comorbidities by baseline healthcare utilization on receipt of recommended eye examinations.
methodsRetrospective analysis of 310 691 nonelderly adults with type 2 diabetes in the IBM MarketScan Commercial Database from 2016 to 2019. Patients were grouped based on diabetes-concordant (related) or -discordant (unrelated) comorbidities. Logistic regression was used to estimate the prevalence ratio (PR) for eye examinations by comorbidity status, healthcare utilization, and an interaction between comorbidities and utilization, controlling for age, sex, region, and major eye disease.
resultsPrevalence of biennial eye examinations varied by the four comorbidity groups: 43.5% (diabetes only), 52.7% (concordant + discordant comorbidities), 48.0% (concordant comorbidities only), and 45.3% (discordant comorbidities only). In the lowest healthcare utilization tertile, the concordant-only and concordant + discordant groups had lower prevalence of examinations compared to diabetes only (PR 0.95 [95% CI 0.92-0.98] and PR 0.91 [95% CI 0.88-0.95], respectively). In the medium utilization tertile, the discordant-only and concordant + discordant groups had lower prevalence of examinations (PR 0.89 [0.83-0.95] and PR 0.94 [0.90-0.98], respectively). In the highest utilization tertile, the concordant-only and concordant + discordant groups had higher prevalence of examinations.
conclusionsAmong patients with low healthcare utilization, having comorbid conditions is associated with lower prevalence of eye examinations. Among those with medium healthcare utilization, patients with diabetes-discordant comorbidities are particularly vulnerable. This study highlights populations of diabetes patients who would benefit from increased assistance in receiving vision-preserving eye examinations.
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.