Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 240

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Online disease management of diabetes: Engaging and Motivating Patients Online With Enhanced Resources-Diabetes (EMPOWER-D), a randomized controlled trial

Open access
Tang, P. C., Overhage, J. M., Chan, A. S., Brown, N. L., Aghighi, B., Entwistle, M. P., Hui, S. L., Hyde, S. M., Klieman, L. H., Mitchell, C. J., Perkins, A. J., Qureshi, L. S., Waltimyer, T. A., Winters, L. J., Young, C. Y.·2013·Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
DOI 10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001263
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate an online disease management system supporting patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Engaging and Motivating Patients Online With Enhanced Resources for Diabetes was a 12-month parallel randomized controlled trial of 415 patients with type 2 diabetes with baseline glycosylated hemoglobin (A1C) values ≥7.5% from primary care sites sharing an electronic health record. The intervention included: (1) wirelessly uploaded home glucometer readings with graphical feedback; (2) comprehensive patient-specific diabetes summary status report; (3) nutrition and exercise logs; (4) insulin record; (5) online messaging with the patient's health team; (6) nurse care manager and dietitian providing advice and medication management; and (7) personalized text and video educational 'nuggets' dispensed electronically by the care team. A1C was the primary outcome variable. RESULTS: Compared with usual care (UC, n=189), patients in the intervention (INT, n=193) group had significantly reduced A1C at 6 months (-1.32% INT vs -0.66% UC; p<0.001). At 12 months, the differences were not significant (-1.14% INT vs -0.95% UC; p=0.133). In post hoc analysis, significantly more INT patients had improved diabetes control (>0.5% reduction in A1C) than UC patients at 12 months (69.9 (95% CI 63.2 to 76.5) vs 55.4 (95% CI 48.4 to 62.5); p=0.006). CONCLUSIONS: A nurse-led, multidisciplinary health team can manage a population of diabetic patients in an online disease management program. INT patients achieved greater decreases in A1C at 6 months than UC patients, but the differences were not sustained at 12 months. More INT than UC patients achieved improvement in A1C (>0.5% decrease). Trial registered in clinical trials.gov: #NCT00542204.

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 · 10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001263

Cites

7 of 7 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 7 references

Research works printed but not linked: 17

  1. Cheung, 2009, The American journal of medicine, 122, 443, 10.1016/j.amjmed.2008.09.047 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Engelgau, 2004, Annals of Internal Medicine, 140, 945, 10.7326/0003-4819-140-11-200406010-00035 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 2008, Diabetes Care, 31, 81, 10.2337/dc07-1572 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Wagner, 2000, BMJ, 320, 569, 10.1136/bmj.320.7234.569 · DOI · Paper page
  5. 2006, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 13, 121, 10.1197/jamia.M2025 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Tang, 2005, Health Affairs, 24, 1290, 10.1377/hlthaff.24.5.1290 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 2008, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 15, 1, 10.1197/jamia.M2562 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Grimshaw, 2001, Medical care, 39, II2, 10.1097/00005650-200108002-00002 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Funnell, 2012, Diabetes Care, 35, S101, 10.2337/dc12-s101 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Polonsky, 1995, Diabetes Care, 18, 754, 10.2337/diacare.18.6.754 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Cebul, 2011, New England Journal of Medicine, 365, 825, 10.1056/NEJMsa1102519 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Seitz, 2011, Diabetes, obesity & metabolism, 13, 479, 10.1111/j.1463-1326.2010.01347.x · DOI
  13. Franc, 2011, Diabetes & metabolism, 37, 463, 10.1016/j.diabet.2011.06.006 · DOI
  14. 2006, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 13, 40, 10.1197/jamia.M1917 · DOI · Paper page
  15. 2009, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 16, 446, 10.1197/jamia.M3157 · DOI · Paper page
  16. 2009, Diabetes Care, 32, 234, 10.2337/dc08-1220 · DOI · Paper page
  17. McMahon, 2005, Diabetes Care, 28, 1624, 10.2337/diacare.28.7.1624 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

See all 240

Metadata

Authors
Tang, P. C., Overhage, J. M., Chan, A. S., Brown, N. L., Aghighi, B., Entwistle, M. P., Hui, S. L., Hyde, S. M., Klieman, L. H., Mitchell, C. J., Perkins, A. J., Qureshi, L. S., Waltimyer, T. A., Winters, L. J., & Young, C. Y.
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2013-05-01
Volume
20
Issue
3
Pages
526-534
ISSN
  • 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-974X
DOI
10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001263
OpenAlex
W2166573478
Cited by
240
References
7
FWCI
10.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Online disease management of diabetes: Engaging and Motivating Patients Online With Enhanced Resources-Diabetes (EMPOWER-D), a randomized controlled trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001263
The paper
Tang, P. C., Overhage, J. M., Chan, A. S., Brown, N. L., Aghighi, B., Entwistle, M. P., Hui, S. L., Hyde, S. M., Klieman, L. H., Mitchell, C. J., Perkins, A. J., Qureshi, L. S., Waltimyer, T. A., Winters, L. J., & Young, C. Y. (2013). Online disease management of diabetes: Engaging and Motivating Patients Online With Enhanced Resources-Diabetes (EMPOWER-D), a randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. https://doi.org/10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001263

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.