Evidence mapPaperPMID 25367012Full record

ArticleJournal of diabetes science and technology2015

Use of diabetes data management software reports by health care providers, patients with diabetes, and caregivers improves accuracy and efficiency of data analysis and interpretation compared with traditional logbook data: first results of the Accu-Chek Connect Reports Utility and Efficiency Study (ACCRUES).

Deborah A Hinnen, Ann Buskirk, Maureen Lyden, Linda Amstutz, Tracy Hunter, Christopher G Parkin, Robin Wagner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Bolus Advisors: Sources of Error, Targets for Improvement.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2018
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Self-Management Behaviors in Adults on Insulin Pump Therapy.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2017
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Deborah A HinnenMemorial Hospital Diabetes Center, University of Colorado Health Center, Colorado Springs Colorado, USA.
Ann BuskirkRoche Diagnostics, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Maureen LydenBiostat International, Inc, University Point Place, Tampa, FL, USA.
Linda AmstutzRoche Diagnostics, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Tracy HunterRoche Diagnostics, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Christopher G ParkinCGParkin Communications, Boulder City, NV, USA chris@cgparkin.org.
Robin WagnerRoche Diagnostics, Indianapolis, IN, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We assessed users' proficiency and efficiency in identifying and interpreting self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG), insulin, and carbohydrate intake data using data management software reports compared with standard logbooks. This prospective, self-controlled, randomized study enrolled insulin-treated patients with diabetes (PWDs) (continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion [CSII] and multiple daily insulin injection [MDI] therapy), patient caregivers [CGVs]) and health care providers (HCPs) who were naïve to diabetes data management computer software. Six paired clinical cases (3 CSII, 3 MDI) and associated multiple-choice questions/answers were reviewed by diabetes specialists and presented to participants via a web portal in both software report (SR) and traditional logbook (TL) formats. Participant response time and accuracy were documented and assessed. Participants completed a preference questionnaire at study completion. All participants (54 PWDs, 24 CGVs, 33 HCPs) completed the cases. Participants achieved greater accuracy (assessed by percentage of accurate answers) using the SR versus TL formats: PWDs, 80.3 (13.2)% versus 63.7 (15.0)%, P < .0001; CGVs, 84.6 (8.9)% versus 63.6 (14.4)%, P < .0001; HCPs, 89.5 (8.0)% versus 66.4 (12.3)%, P < .0001. Participants spent less time (minutes) with each case using the SR versus TL formats: PWDs, 8.6 (4.3) versus 19.9 (12.2), P < .0001; CGVs, 7.0 (3.5) versus 15.5 (11.8), P = .0005; HCPs, 6.7 (2.9) versus 16.0 (12.0), P < .0001. The majority of participants preferred using the software reports versus logbook data. Use of the Accu-Chek Connect Online software reports enabled PWDs, CGVs, and HCPs, naïve to diabetes data management software, to identify and utilize key diabetes information with significantly greater accuracy and efficiency compared with traditional logbook information. Use of SRs was preferred over logbooks.

Indexed as

Diabetes MellitusSoftwareBlood Glucose Self-MonitoringCaregiversFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansInformation ManagementMaleMiddle AgedPatient PreferenceSurveys and Questionnairesdiabetes softwareinsulinself-managementself-monitoring of blood glucoseSMBG

Identifiers

PMID25367012
PMCPMC4604583

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.