ArticleClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR2024
Cost-Savings Associated with Multi-Disciplinary Team Approach for Reducing Macrovascular and Microvascular Complications in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Predictive Model.
Article in ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Estimating the Clinical, Quality-of-Life and Economic Impact of Optimized Management of Type 2 Diabetes Patients in Spain.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Evaluating the Economic Impact of Diabetes Mellitus: A Hospital-Centric Cost Analysis in Hail, Saudi Arabia.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2025Article
- Mechanisms underlying cognitive impairment and management strategies in type 2 diabetes.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Review
- Cost-Effectiveness of Once-Weekly Insulin Icodec versus Daily Basal Insulins in Chinese Adults with T2DM: A Treatment-Background Stratified Analysis.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aims to predict the expected cost savings associated with implementing a multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach to reduce macrovascular and microvascular complications among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Methods: This economic evaluation study was conducted in Riyadh First Health Cluster, Saudi Arabia as a predictive model conceptualized by the authors based on models used in previous studies, particularly the CORE Diabetes Model. Our model was designed based on 1) the level of glycemic control among 24,755 T2DM patients served by MDTs; 2) the expected incidence of diabetes-related complications without intervention; 3) the predicted risk reduction of developing diabetes-related complications with MDTs. Costs of complications and cost savings were then calculated and expressed as mean incremental annual cost savings adjusted for a 1% reduction in HbA1c, and a 10 mmHg reduction in systolic blood pressure (SBP). Results: Along with the expected reduction in all diabetes-related complications, the average incremental cost savings per diabetic patient is predicted to be ($38,878) with approximately ($11,108) in the year of complication onset and ($27,770) over the subsequent post-index 10-years. On adjustment of cost savings, the average incremental cost savings are predicted to be ($22,869) for each 1% reduction in HbA1c per diabetic patient and ($27,770) for every 10 mmHg reduction in SBP per diabetic patient. Conclusion: MDT as a model of care is effective in glycemic control among T2DM patients with a predicted significant reduction of all diabetes-related complications and in turn, a predicted significant cost savings.
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.