Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 332

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

Electronic Health Records and Quality of Diabetes Care

Open access
Cebul, Randall D., Love, Thomas E., Jain, Anil K., Hebert, Christopher J.·2011·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Available studies have shown few quality-related advantages of electronic health records (EHRs) over traditional paper records. We compared achievement of and improvement in quality standards for diabetes at practices using EHRs with those at practices using paper records. All practices, including many safety-net primary care practices, belonged to a regional quality collaborative and publicly reported performance. METHODS: We used generalized estimating equations to calculate the percentage-point difference between EHR-based and paper-based practices with respect to achievement of composite standards for diabetes care (including four component standards) and outcomes (five standards), after adjusting for covariates and accounting for clustering. In addition to insurance type (Medicare, commercial, Medicaid, or uninsured), patient-level covariates included race or ethnic group (white, black, Hispanic, or other), age, sex, estimated household income, and level of education. Analyses were conducted separately for the overall sample and for safety-net practices. RESULTS: From July 2009 through June 2010, data were reported for 27,207 adults with diabetes seen at 46 practices; safety-net practices accounted for 38% of patients. After adjustment for covariates, achievement of composite standards for diabetes care was 35.1 percentage points higher at EHR sites than at paper-based sites (P<0.001), and achievement of composite standards for outcomes was 15.2 percentage points higher (P=0.005). EHR sites were associated with higher achievement on eight of nine component standards. Such sites were also associated with greater improvement in care (a difference of 10.2 percentage points in annual improvement, P<0.001) and outcomes (a difference of 4.1 percentage points in annual improvement, P=0.02). Across all insurance types, EHR sites were associated with significantly higher achievement of care and outcome standards and greater improvement in diabetes care. Results confined to safety-net practices were similar. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support the premise that federal policies encouraging the meaningful use of EHRs may improve the quality of care across insurance types.

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 · 10.1056/nejmsa1102519

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 332

Metadata

Authors
Cebul, R. D., Love, T. E., Jain, A. K., & Hebert, C. J.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2011-09
Volume
365
Issue
9
Pages
825-833
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2153658404
Cited by
332
References
6
FWCI
59.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Electronic Health Records and Quality of Diabetes Care. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmsa1102519
The paper
Cebul, R. D., Love, T. E., Jain, A. K., & Hebert, C. J. (2011). Electronic Health Records and Quality of Diabetes Care. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmsa1102519

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.