ArticleLearning health systems2026
Effect of Using Personalized Estimates of Diabetes Risk During Primary Care Visits for People With Prediabetes.
Article in Learning health systems, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Catching the Wave: AI In Health Services Research.Learning health systems · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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 U.S. health care organization. We conducted patient and provider focus groups and pre- and post-dissemination surveys among 2500 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% for providers and 66.9% for patients. People with prediabetes who had a primary care visit where their care team had access to personal risk of developing type 2 diabetes assessed by the EHR-based prediction model were significantly less likely to progress to diabetes within 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%, Conclusions: Used at the point of care during a primary care visit, the EHR-based diabetes risk calculator helped providers prioritize patients for diabetes preventive interventions, facilitated communication, and improved health outcomes among patients with prediabetes.
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.