ArticleJMA journal2025
Regional Differences and Similarities in Diabetes Care in Japan: Insights from the J-DOME Registry.
Article in JMA journal, 2025. 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.
- Association of hypertension specialist treatment with blood pressure control in Japanese primary care: The J-DOME study.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2026Article
- Prefecture-Level Prehospital Glucose Administration for Hypoglycemia and Diabetologist Density Among Older Adults in Japan: A Nationwide Ecological Study.Geriatrics & gerontology international · 2026Article
- Bridging the gap: Strengthening shared care for diabetes in Japan.Journal of diabetes investigation · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Comparing diabetes care across different regions of Japan is essential for informing future healthcare policy. Additionally, since many patients with diabetes receive treatment from non-specialist physicians, it is important to determine whether differences exist between diabetes specialists and non-specialists in terms of medical care and to identify specific areas, if any, where these differences occur. Methods: To investigate this, we utilized data from J-DOME (Japan Medical Association Database of Clinical Medicine), a patient registry established as a nationwide project by the Japan Medical Association. Patients with type 2 diabetes were categorized into seven regional groups based on Japan's prefectural divisions, and a regional comparison was conducted. Differences between specialists and non-specialists were also examined. Results: A total of 116 medical institutions encompassing 2,938 patients were included in the analysis. The nationwide mean glycated hemoglobin level was 6.96% (standard deviation [SD]: 0.46), with no statistically significant regional variations. Similarly, the nationwide mean blood pressure was 129.7/73.0 mmHg (SD: 6.1/5.7 mmHg), with no significant regional differences observed.The average rates of regular ophthalmologic visits and urinary albumin quantification testing were 63.7% (SD: 31.3) and 40.2% (SD: 38.4), respectively. These rates were significantly higher in institutions led by diabetes specialists compared to those managed by non-specialists (regular ophthalmologic visit rate: non-specialists institutions: 53.9% [SD: 33.8]; diabetes specialist institutions: 78.5% [SD: 19.5], p < 0.001; urinary albumin quantification test rate among patients without macroproteinuria: non-specialist institutions: 33.5% [SD: 39.0]; diabetes specialist institutions: 62.5% [SD: 35.5], p < 0.001). Conclusions: This survey revealed no significant regional differences in diabetes care. However, certain aspects of diabetes management differed significantly between diabetes specialists and non-specialist physicians.
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.