Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 274

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Missed Appointments and Poor Glycemic Control: An Opportunity to Identify High-Risk Diabetic Patients

Karter, Andrew J., Parker, Melissa M., Moffet, Howard H., Ahmed, Ameena T., Ferrara, Assiamira, Liu, Jennifer Y., Selby, Joe V.·2004·Medical Care

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: When patients miss scheduled medical appointments, continuity and effectiveness of healthcare delivery is reduced, appropriate monitoring of health status lapses, and the cost of health services increases. We evaluated the relationship between missed appointments and glycemic control (glycosylated hemoglobin or HbA1c) in a large, managed care population of diabetic patients. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Missed appointment rate was related cross-sectionally to glycemic control among 84,040 members of the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Diabetes Registry during 2000. Adjusted least-square mean estimates of HbA1c were derived by level of appointment keeping (none missed, 1-30% missed, and >30% missed appointments for the calendar year) stratified by diabetes therapy. RESULTS: Twelve percent of the subjects missed more than 30% of scheduled appointments during 2000. Greater rates of missed appointments were associated with significantly poorer glycemic control after adjusting for demographic factors (age, sex), clinical status, and health care utilization. The adjusted mean HbA1c among members who missed >30% of scheduled appointments was 0.70 to 0.79 points higher (P <0.0001) relative to those attending all appointments. Patients who missed more than 30% of their appointments were less likely to practice daily self-monitoring of blood glucose and to have poor oral medication refill adherence. CONCLUSION: Patients who underuse care lack recorded information needed to determine level of risk. Frequently missed appointments were associated with poorer glycemic control and suboptimal diabetes self-management practice, are readily ascertained in clinical settings, and therefore could have clinical utility as a risk-stratifying criterion indicating the need for targeted case management.

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 · 10.1097/01.mlr.0000109023.64650.73

Cites

4 of 4 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 4 references

Cited by

See all 274

Metadata

Authors
Karter, A. J., Parker, M. M., Moffet, H. H., Ahmed, A. T., Ferrara, A., Liu, J. Y., & Selby, J. V.
Venue
Medical Care
Published
2004-02
Volume
42
Issue
2
Pages
110-115
ISSN
0025-7079 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2038729417
Cited by
274
References
4
FWCI
6.11
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: Missed Appointments and Poor Glycemic Control: An Opportunity to Identify High-Risk Diabetic Patients. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.mlr.0000109023.64650.73
The paper
Karter, A. J., Parker, M. M., Moffet, H. H., Ahmed, A. T., Ferrara, A., Liu, J. Y., & Selby, J. V. (2004). Missed Appointments and Poor Glycemic Control: An Opportunity to Identify High-Risk Diabetic Patients. Medical Care. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000109023.64650.73

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.