ArticleBMJ open2023
Diabetes mellitus monitoring and control among adults in Australian general practice: a national retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Gaps in Guideline-Concordant Care in Diabetic Kidney Disease: A Real-World Analysis of Screening, Treatment, and Associated Factors.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- Therapeutic inertia.Australian prescriber · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study investigated whether the monitoring and control of clinical parameters are better among patients with newly compared with past recorded diabetes diagnosis.
designRetrospective cohort study.
settingMedicineInsight, a national general practice database in Australia.
participants101 875 'regular' adults aged 18+ years with past recorded (2015-2016) and 9236 with newly recorded (2017) diabetes diagnosis.
main outcome measuresTwo different groups of outcomes were assessed in 2018. The first group of outcomes was the proportion of patients with clinical parameters (ie, glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), blood pressure (BP), total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, estimated glomerular filtration rate and albumin-to-creatinine ratio) monitored at least once in 2018. The second group of outcomes were those related to diabetes control in 2018 (HbA1c ≤7.0%, (BP) ≤140/90 mm Hg, total cholesterol <4.0 mmol/L and LDL-C <2.0 mmol/L). Adjusted ORs (OR
resultsThe study included 111 111 patients (51.7% men; mean age 65.3±15.0 years) with recorded diabetes diagnosis (11.0% of all 1 007 714 adults in the database). HbA1c was monitored in 39.2% (95% CI 36.9% to 41.6%) of patients with newly recorded and 45.2% (95% CI 42.6% to 47.8%) with past recorded diabetes (OR
conclusionsThe monitoring of clinical parameters was lower among patients with newly than past recorded diabetes. However, diabetes control was similarly low in both groups, with only one in five monitored patients achieving control of all clinical parameters.
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.