ArticleQuality & safety in health care2007
Risk assessment in diabetes management: how do general practitioners estimate risks due to diabetes?
Article in Quality & safety in health care, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- A dashboard-based system for supporting diabetes care.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2018Article
- International challenges without borders: a descriptive study of family physicians' educational needs in the field of diabetes.BMC family practice · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the ability of general practitioners (GPs) in Germany to estimate the risk of patients with diabetes developing complications.
methodsAn interview study using a structured questionnaire to estimate risks of four case vignettes having diabetes-specific complications within the next 10 years, risk reduction and life expectancy potential. A representative random sample of 584 GPs has been drawn, of which 150 could be interviewed. We compared GPs' estimates among each other (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Cohen's (multirater-) kappa) and with risks for long-term complications generated by the multifactor disease model "Mellibase", which is a knowledge-based support system for medical decision management.
resultsThe risk estimates by GPs varied widely (ICC 0.21 95% CI (0.13 to 0.36)). The average level of potential risk reduction was between 47% and 70%. Compared with Mellibase values, on average, the GPs overestimated the risk threefold. Mean estimates of potential prolongation of life expectancy were close to 10 years for each patient, whereas the Mellibase calculations ranged from 3 to 10 years.
conclusionsOverestimation could lead to unnecessary care and waste of resources.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.