ArticleInternal medicine journal2025
Comparing glycaemic outcomes of digital and paper-based hospitals (GOOD study).
Article in Internal medicine journal, 2025. 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
Abstract
backgroundDigital technologies in healthcare are seen as mechanisms to improve and optimise management of health conditions.
aimTo assess the impact of digitisation on clinical outcomes and medication errors for patients with diabetes.
methodsThis repeated cross-sectional study used data collected from the Queensland Inpatient Diabetes Survey (QuIDS), which was conducted in 2019 and 2021 at digital and paper-based hospitals in Queensland. Relevant data were collected from patients with diabetes admitted to participating hospitals during a single day of the study week. Outcomes and error rates of patients who were admitted to digital versus paper-based hospitals were compared. Regression determined the factors that contributed to 'good diabetes days' and 'no hypoglycaemic days'. Prescribing and management errors were compared.
resultsData on 1942 patient admissions (6977 patient bed days) were collected. Of these, 1076 patient admissions (55%) were at a digital hospital, while 866 patient admissions (45%) were at a paper-based hospital. Using regression, it was found that being admitted to a digital hospital increased the odds of a 'good diabetes day' by 45% (P < 0.001), but there was no change in 'no hypoglycaemic days' (P = 0.183). There was a reduction in the proportion of patients with at least one error type across all error categories amongst those admitted to a digital hospital (P < 0.001).
conclusionAdmission to a digital hospital improves the odds of experiencing a good diabetes day but does not change the occurrence of hypoglycaemia. There are potential quality and safety considerations for those hospitals still delivering paper-based diabetes 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.