Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 283

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Diabetes Mellitus Medication Choice Decision Aid: A Randomized Trial

Mullan, Rebecca J., Montori, Victor M., Shah, Nilay D., Christianson, Teresa J. H., Bryant, Sandra C., Guyatt, Gordon H., Perestelo-Perez, Lilisbeth I., Stroebel, Robert J., Yawn, Barbara P., Yapuncich, Victor, Breslin, Maggie A., Pencille, Laurie, Smith, Steven A.·2009·Archives of Internal Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patient involvement in the choice of antihyperglycemic agents could improve adherence and optimize glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: We conducted a pilot, cluster randomized trial of Diabetes Medication Choice, a decision aid that describes 5 antihyperglycemic drugs, their treatment burden (adverse effects, administration, and self-monitoring demands), and impact on hemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) levels. Twenty-one clinicians were randomized to use the decision aid during the clinical encounter and 19 to dispense usual care and an educational pamphlet. We used surveys and video analysis to assess postvisit decisional outcomes, and medical and pharmacy records to assess 6-month medication adherence and HbA(1c) levels. RESULTS: Compared with usual care patients (n = 37), patients receiving the decision aid (n = 48) found the tool more helpful (clustered-adjusted mean difference [AMD] in a 7-point scale, 0.38; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.04-0.72); had improved knowledge (AMD, 1.10 of 10 questions; 95% CI, 0.11-2.09); and had more involvement in making decisions about diabetes medications (AMD, 21.8 of 100; 95% CI, 13.0-30.5). At 6-month follow-up, both groups had nearly perfect medication use (median, 100% of days covered), with better adherence (AMD, 9% more days covered; 95% CI, 4%-14%) and persistence (AMD, 12 more days covered; 95% CI, 3-21 days) in the usual care group, and no significant impact on HbA(1c) levels (AMD, 0.01; 95% CI, -0.49 to 0.50). CONCLUSION: An innovative decision aid effectively involved patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in decisions about their medications but did not improve adherence or HbA(1c) levels. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00388050.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archinternmed.2009.293

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Cited by

See all 283

Metadata

Authors
Mullan, R. J., Montori, V. M., Shah, N. D., Christianson, T. J. H., Bryant, S. C., Guyatt, G. H., Perestelo-Perez, L. I., Stroebel, R. J., Yawn, B. P., Yapuncich, V., Breslin, M. A., Pencille, L., & Smith, S. A.
Venue
Archives of Internal Medicine
Published
2009-09-28
Volume
169
Issue
17
Pages
1560-8
ISSN
0003-9926 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1978874367
Cited by
283
References
6
FWCI
23.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Diabetes Mellitus Medication Choice Decision Aid: A Randomized Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archinternmed.2009.293
The paper
Mullan, R. J., Montori, V. M., Shah, N. D., Christianson, T. J. H., Bryant, S. C., Guyatt, G. H., Perestelo-Perez, L. I., Stroebel, R. J., Yawn, B. P., Yapuncich, V., Breslin, M. A., Pencille, L., & Smith, S. A. (2009). The Diabetes Mellitus Medication Choice Decision Aid: A Randomized Trial. Archives of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2009.293

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.