ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2023
Clinical Variation in the Treatment Practices for Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A Cross-Sectional Patient Simulation Study Among Primary Care Physicians and Cardiologists.
Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Medical practice variation in Vietnam: a cross-sectional study.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Cardioprotective therapy in type 2 diabetes guided by a proteomic risk model: A randomized trial.American journal of preventive cardiology · 2026Article
- Article
- Clinical utility of a novel test for assessing cardiovascular disease risk in type 2 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial.Diabetology & metabolic syndrome · 2023Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Cardiovascular disease risk stratification is necessary and critically important in patients with type 2 diabetes. Despite its known benefits to guide treatment and prevention, we hypothesized that providers do not routinely incorporate this into their diagnostic and treatment decisions. Methods and Results The QuiCER DM (QURE CVD Evaluation of Risk in Diabetes Mellitus) study enrolled 161 primary care physicians and 80 cardiologists. Between March 2022 and June 2022, we measured the care variation in risk determination among these providers caring for simulated patients with type 2 diabetes. We found a wide variation in the overall assessment of cardiovascular disease in patients with type 2 diabetes. Participants performed half of the necessary care items with quality-of-care scores, ranging between 13% and 84%, averaging 49.4±12.6%. Participants did not assess cardiovascular risk in 18.3% of cases and incorrectly stratified risk in 42.8% of cases. Only 38.9% of participants arrived at the correct cardiovascular risk stratification. Those who correctly identified a cardiovascular risk score were significantly more likely to order nonpharmacologic treatments, advising on their patients' nutrition (38.8% versus 29.9%,
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.