ArticleDiabetology & metabolic syndrome2024
Clinical inertia in newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus among patients attending selected healthcare institutions in Colombia.
Article in Diabetology & metabolic syndrome, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
12 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe burden of disease of diabetes in Colombia have increased in the last decades. Secondary prevention is crucial for diabetes control. Many patients already treated remain with poor glycemic control and without timely and appropriate treatment intensification. This has been called in the literature as Clinical Inertia. Updated information regarding clinical inertia based on the Colombian diabetes treatment guidelines is needed.
objectiveTo measure the prevalence of clinical inertia in newly diagnosed Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) patients in healthcare institutions in Colombia, based on the recommendations of the current official guidelines.
methodsAn observational and retrospective cohort study based on databases of two Health Medical Organizations (HMOs) in Colombia (one from subsidized regimen and one from contributory regimen) was conducted. Descriptive analysis was performed to summarize demographic and clinical information. Chi-square tests were used to assess associations between variables of interest.
resultsA total of 616 patients with T2DM (308 for each regimen) were included. Median age was 61 years. Overall clinical inertia was 93.5% (87.0% in contributory regimen and 100% in subsidized regimen). Patients with Hb1Ac ≥ 8% in the subsidized regimen were more likely to receive monotherapy than patients in the contributory regimen (OR 2.33; 95% CI 1.41-3.86).
conclusionsIn this study, the prevalence of overall clinical inertia was higher in the subsidized regime than in the contributory regime (100% vs 87%). Great efforts have been made to equalize the coverage between the two systems, but this finding is worrisome with respect to the difference in quality of the health care provided to these two populations. This information may help payers and clinicians to streamline strategies for reducing clinical inertia and improve patient outcomes.
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.