The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Cost effectiveness of an intensive blood glucose control policy in patients with type 2 diabetes: economic analysis alongside randomised controlled trial (UKPDS 41)
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost effectiveness of conventional versus intensive blood glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes. DESIGN: Incremental cost effectiveness analysis alongside randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 23 UK hospital clinic based study centres. PARTICIPANTS: 3867 patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes (mean age 53 years). INTERVENTIONS: Conventional (primarily diet) glucose control policy versus intensive control policy with a sulphonylurea or insulin. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incremental cost per event-free year gained within the trial period. RESULTS: Intensive glucose control increased trial treatment costs by pound 695 (95% confidence interval pound 555 to pound 836) per patient but reduced the cost of complications by pound 957 (pound 233 to pound 1681) compared with conventional management. If standard practice visit patterns were assumed rather than trial conditions, the incremental cost of intensive management was pound 478 (-pound 275 to pound 1232) per patient. The within trial event-free time gained in the intensive group was 0.60 (0.12 to 1.10) years and the lifetime gain 1.14 (0.69 to 1.61) years. The incremental cost per event-free year gained was pound 1166 (costs and effects discounted at 6% a year) and pound 563 (costs discounted at 6% a year and effects not discounted). CONCLUSIONS: Intensive blood glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes significantly increased treatment costs but substantially reduced the cost of complications and increased the time free of complications.
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
Cited by
Representing uncertainty: the role of cost‐effectiveness acceptability curves
Fenwick, E., Claxton, K., & Sculpher, M. (2001) · Health Economics · doi:10.1002/hec.635 · Cited by 1,110
The UKPDS risk engine: a model for the risk of coronary heart disease in Type II diabetes (UKPDS 56)
STEVENS, R. J., KOTHARI, V., ADLER, A. I., & STRATTON, I. M. (2001) · Clinical Science · doi:10.1042/cs20000335 · Cited by 1,084
Castaneda, C., Layne, J. E., Munoz-Orians, L., Gordon, P. L., Walsmith, J., Foldvari, M., Roubenoff, R., Tucker, K. L., & Nelson, M. E. (2002) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/diacare.25.12.2335 · Cited by 844
Clarke, P. M., Gray, A. M., Briggs, A., Farmer, A. J., Fenn, P., Stevens, R. J., Matthews, D. R., Stratton, I. M., Holman, R. R., & on behalf of the UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group (2004) · Diabetologia · doi:10.1007/s00125-004-1527-z · Cited by 615
Self-citationFrequency of Severe Hypoglycemia Requiring Emergency Treatment in Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes
Leese, G. P., Wang, J., Broomhall, J., Kelly, P., Marsden, A., Morrison, W., Frier, B. M., Morris, A. D., & For the DARTS/MEMO Collaboration (2003) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/diacare.26.4.1176 · Cited by 559
Metadata
- Authors
- Gray, A.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2000-05-20
- Volume
- 320
- Issue
- 7246
- Pages
- 1373-1378
- ISSN
- 0959-8138 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1976787772
- Cited by
- 323
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 73.85
- 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: Cost effectiveness of an intensive blood glucose control policy in patients with type 2 diabetes: economic analysis alongside randomised controlled trial (UKPDS 41). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.320.7246.1373
- The paper
- Gray, A. (2000). Cost effectiveness of an intensive blood glucose control policy in patients with type 2 diabetes: economic analysis alongside randomised controlled trial (UKPDS 41). BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7246.1373
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.