Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41425045›Full record

ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2025

Effect of discussing personalized estimates of diabetes risk for people with prediabetes.

Natalia Olchanski, Christine E Skiro, Kristen Sonon, Sarah Kaus, Ericka C Holmstrand, Elizabeth L Ciemins, John K Cuddeback, Francis R Colangelo, David M Kent

Abstract readPreprint
In one paragraph

Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Natalia Olchanski
Christine E Skiro
Kristen Sonon
Sarah Kaus
Ericka C Holmstrand
Elizabeth L Ciemins
John K Cuddeback
Francis R Colangelo
David M Kent

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: To assess acceptability, feasibility, and effectiveness of incorporating individualized risk prediction into clinical assessment, decision making, and communication of risk of type 2 diabetes, with and without preventive interventions, in patients with prediabetes. Methods: We integrated a prediction model into the clinical workflow at a US health care organization. We conducted patient and provider focus groups and pre- and post-dissemination surveys among 2,500 patients with prediabetes who had primary care visits between May 2018 and December 2019. We compared rates of progression to type 2 diabetes at 3 years between the intervention group and a propensity score matched cohort of patients who received usual care. Results: Prior to implementing the predictive model, 41.6% of providers and 63.8% of patients felt confident or very confident in their ability to estimate the risk of progression to diabetes for individual patients. After personalized risk information was made available, this increased to 92.8% and 66.9%, for providers and patients, respectively. People with prediabetes who had a discussion with their provider about their personal risk of developing type 2 diabetes, supported by the EHR-based prediction model, were significantly less likely to progress to diabetes in the following 3 years, compared to a propensity-score-matched cohort who received usual care in the same health system without individualized risk estimates (19.5% vs. 27.6%, p = 0.042). Conclusions: Used at the point of care during a shared decision-making discussion between the patient and provider, the EHR-based diabetes risk calculator helped providers prioritize patients for diabetes prevention interventions, facilitated communication, and improved health outcomes among patients with prediabetes. Contributions to the Literature: One-third of U.S. adults have prediabetes, a condition which carries an increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes, yet few people with prediabetes receive evidence-based preventive intervention such as the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) or metformin. A recent study suggests a new category of preventive intervention, GLP-1 and GIP receptor agonist, is highly effective for prevention in people with prediabetes and obesity. Provider organizations need an efficient way to risk-stratify the large population of people with prediabetes, in order to focus prevention efforts toward those who are at greatest risk.A risk calculator integrated in the electronic health record (EHR) equipped physicians to provide an estimate of each patient's individual risk of developing type 2 diabetes and prioritize patients for preventive interventions. DPP referrals and metformin prescribing increased substantially, and patients at high risk were more likely to receive a preventive intervention than those at intermediate or low risk.People with prediabetes for whom use of the diabetes risk prediction tool was documented were significantly less likely to progress to diabetes over 3 years, compared to a propensity-score-matched cohort who received usual care in the same health system without individualized risk estimates (19.5% vs. 27.6%).

Identifiers

PMID41425045
PMCPMC12713624

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.