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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Hillestad, R., Bigelow, J., Bower, A., Girosi, F., Meili, R., Scoville, R., & Taylor, R. (2005) · Health Affairs · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.24.5.1103 · Cited by 1,675
The Impact of eHealth on the Quality and Safety of Health Care: A Systematic Overview
Black, A. D., Car, J., Pagliari, C., Anandan, C., Cresswell, K., Bokun, T., McKinstry, B., Procter, R., Majeed, A., & Sheikh, A. (2011) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000387 · Cited by 1,442
A cost-benefit analysis of electronic medical records in primary care
Wang, S. J., Middleton, B., Prosser, L. A., Bardon, C. G., Spurr, C. D., Carchidi, P. J., Kittler, A. F., Goldszer, R. C., Fairchild, D. G., Sussman, A. J., et al. (2003) · The American Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0002-9343(03)00057-3 · Cited by 740
Electronic Health Record Use and the Quality of Ambulatory Care in the United States
Linder, J. A., Ma, J., Bates, D. W., Middleton, B., & Stafford, R. S. (2007) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.167.13.1400 · Cited by 438
Quality of Diabetes Care in U.S. Academic Medical Centers
Grant, R. W., Buse, J. B., Meigs, J. B., & for the University HealthSystem Consortium (UHC) Diabetes Benchmarking Project Team (2005) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/diacare.28.2.337 · Cited by 311
Tang, P. C., Ralston, M., Arrigotti, M. F., Qureshi, L., & Graham, J. (2007) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1197/jamia.m2198 · Cited by 193
Cited by
Standards of medical care in diabetes—2014
American Diabetes Association (2014) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/dc14-s014 · Cited by 4,572
Standards of medical care in diabetes—2013
American Diabetes Association (2013) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/dc13-s011 · Cited by 4,369
Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2012
(2012) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/dc12-s011 · Cited by 2,240
Huang, L., Shea, A. L., Qian, H., Masurkar, A., Deng, H., & Liu, D. (2019) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103291 · Cited by 437
Mining Electronic Health Records (EHRs): A Survey
Yadav, P., Steinbach, M., Kumar, V., & Simon, G. (2018) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3127881 · Cited by 299
Metadata
- Authors
- Cebul, R. D., Love, T. E., Jain, A. K., & Hebert, C. J.
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- 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.