ArticleBMC primary care2025
Assessing physicians' agreement and the completeness of the decision aid 'arriba Diabetes': a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC primary care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Refining MediQuit: an iterative, participatory approach to shared decision-making in deprescribing.Implementation science communications · 2026Article
- Development and proof-of-concept of a complex intervention to support appropriate imaging for musculoskeletal pain: the Betti programme.Implementation science communications · 2026Article
- Frailty-Informed Deprescribing of Glucose-Lowering Therapy in Older Adults with Type 2 Diabetes: A Pragmatic Clinical Framework.Clinical interventions in aging · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGuidelines for type 2 diabetes emphasise individualised treatment goals, yet implementation remains challenging in primary care. To address this, we developed the "arriba Diabetes" software, a patient-centred decision support tool. The software provides individualised recommendations for intensity of treatment based on four inputs: age, comorbidities, treatment burden preference, and risk reduction preference.
methodsIn a cross-sectional evaluation study in German primary care, we included 34 general practitioners (GPs) and 152 patients. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the "arriba Diabetes" software by assessing the agreement between its treatment intensity recommendation and physicians' clinical judgement. Additionally, we explored the cases of disagreement, the distribution of patient-specific inputs and physicians' perspectives on the software's usability.
resultsThe "arriba Diabetes" recommendations aligned in 87% of cases with GPs' recommendation, and 87% of the doctors would use "arriba Diabetes" in the future. Patients had a median age of 68 years with a low comorbid load (median 3 on a scale 0-10). Patients expressed a moderate preference for higher treatment burden (median 6 on a scale 0-10) and a high preference to reduce organ complications in the future (median 8 on a scale 0-10). Acceptance of therapy burden correlated positively with the preference to reduce organ damage (Spearman correlation coefficient: +0.49).
conclusionsRecommendations of "arriba Diabetes" were well aligned with GPs' recommendations. Implementation of the "arriba Diabetes" software has the potential to promote patient-centred and evidence-based diabetes treatment decisions in primary care.
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.