Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 379

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Randomized Trial Comparing Telemedicine Case Management with Usual Care in Older, Ethnically Diverse, Medically Underserved Patients with Diabetes Mellitus: 5 Year Results of the IDEATel Study

Open access
Shea, S., Weinstock, R. S., Teresi, J. A., Palmas, W., Starren, J., Cimino, J. J., Lai, A. M., Field, L., Morin, P. C., Goland, R., Izquierdo, R. E., Ebner, S., Silver, S., Petkova, E., Kong, J., Eimicke, J. P., IDEATel Consortium·2009·Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Abstract

CONTEXT Telemedicine is a promising but largely unproven technology for providing case management services to patients with chronic conditions and lower access to care. OBJECTIVES To examine the effectiveness of a telemedicine intervention to achieve clinical management goals in older, ethnically diverse, medically underserved patients with diabetes. DESIGN, Setting, and Patients A randomized controlled trial was conducted, comparing telemedicine case management to usual care, with blinded outcome evaluation, in 1,665 Medicare recipients with diabetes, aged >/= 55 years, residing in federally designated medically underserved areas of New York State. Interventions Home telemedicine unit with nurse case management versus usual care. Main Outcome Measures The primary endpoints assessed over 5 years of follow-up were hemoglobin A1c (HgbA1c), low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, and blood pressure levels. RESULTS Intention-to-treat mixed models showed that telemedicine achieved net overall reductions over five years of follow-up in the primary endpoints (HgbA1c, p = 0.001; LDL, p < 0.001; systolic and diastolic blood pressure, p = 0.024; p < 0.001). Estimated differences (95% CI) in year 5 were 0.29 (0.12, 0.46)% for HgbA1c, 3.84 (-0.08, 7.77) mg/dL for LDL cholesterol, and 4.32 (1.93, 6.72) mm Hg for systolic and 2.64 (1.53, 3.74) mm Hg for diastolic blood pressure. There were 176 deaths in the intervention group and 169 in the usual care group (hazard ratio 1.01 [0.82, 1.24]). CONCLUSIONS Telemedicine case management resulted in net improvements in HgbA1c, LDL-cholesterol and blood pressure levels over 5 years in medically underserved Medicare beneficiaries. Mortality was not different between the groups, although power was limited. Trial Registration http://clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00271739.

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 · 10.1197/jamia.m3157

Cites

11 of 11 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 11 references

Research works printed but not linked: 32

  1. Wootton, 2005, Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 11, 221, 10.1258/1357633054471812 · DOI
  2. Farmer, 2005, Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association, 22, 1372, 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2005.01627.x · DOI · Paper page
  3. Saydah, 2004, JAMA, 291, 335, 10.1001/jama.291.3.335 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Nelson, 2005, Health services research, 40, 361, 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.0d362.x · DOI
  5. McWilliams, 2007, New England Journal of Medicine, 357, 143, 10.1056/NEJMsa067712 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Chou, 2007, Women's health issues : official publication of the Jacobs Institute of Women's Health, 17, 150, 10.1016/j.whi.2007.03.003 · DOI
  7. Weingarten, 2006, The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association, 22, 351, 10.1111/j.1748-0361.2006.00057.x · DOI
  8. Scott, 2002, Medical care, 40, 395, 10.1097/00005650-200205000-00005 · DOI · Paper page
  9. 2002, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 9, 49, 10.1136/jamia.2002.0090049 · DOI · Paper page
  10. 2006, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 13, 40, 10.1197/jamia.M1917 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 2002, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 9, 25, 10.1136/jamia.2002.0090025 · DOI
  12. Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatme, 2001, JAMA, 285, 2486, 10.1001/jama.285.19.2486 · DOI · Paper page
  13. 2003, JAMA, 289, 2560, 10.1001/jama.289.19.2560 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Friedewald, 1972, Clinical Chemistry, 18, 499, 10.1093/clinchem/18.6.499 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Perloff, 1993, Circulation, 88, 2460, 10.1161/01.CIR.88.5.2460 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Sullivan, 2008, Circulation, 117, 1238, 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.654350 · doi:10.1161/circulationaha.107.654350
  17. 1978, 6, 461, 10.1214/aos/1176344136 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Liu, 2000, Statistics in medicine, 19, 1593, 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(20000615/30)19:11/12<1593::AID-SIM448>3.0.CO;2-X · doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(20000615/30)19:11/12<1593::aid-sim448>3.0.co;2-x
  19. Shojania, 2006, JAMA, 296, 427, 10.1001/jama.296.4.427 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Saaddine, 2006, Annals of Internal Medicine, 144, 465, 10.7326/0003-4819-144-7-200604040-00005 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Beckman, 2002, JAMA, 287, 2570, 10.1001/jama.287.19.2570 · DOI · Paper page
  22. UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group, 1998, BMJ, 317, 720, 10.1136/bmj.317.7160.720 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Grover, 2001, Diabetes Care, 24, 45, 10.2337/diacare.24.1.45 · DOI
  24. The CDC Diabetes Cost-effectiveness Group, 2002, JAMA, 287, 2542, 10.1001/jama.287.19.2542 · DOI · Paper page
  25. 2008, New England Journal of Medicine, 358, 2630, 10.1056/NEJMe0804182 · DOI · Paper page
  26. 2008, New England Journal of Medicine, 358, 2633, 10.1056/NEJMe0803831 · DOI
  27. Meneilly, 1994, Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 78, 1341, 10.1210/jc.78.6.1341 · doi:10.1210/jc.78.6.1341
  28. Chan, 2006, The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association, 22, 140, 10.1111/j.1748-0361.2006.00022.x · DOI · Paper page
  29. Nash, 2007, Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 84, 307, 10.1007/s11524-006-9129-3 · doi:10.1007/s11524-006-9129-3
  30. Bowsher, 1993, Journal of advanced nursing, 18, 873, 10.1046/j.1365-2648.1993.18060873.x · DOI
  31. Lindenberg, 2001, Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 12, 132, 10.1177/104365960101200207 · DOI
  32. Kaufman, 2003, Journal of biomedical informatics, 36, 45, 10.1016/S1532-0464(03)00056-X · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

See all 379

Metadata

Authors
Shea, S., Weinstock, R. S., Teresi, J. A., Palmas, W., Starren, J., Cimino, J. J., Lai, A. M., Field, L., Morin, P. C., Goland, R., Izquierdo, R. E., Ebner, S., Silver, S., Petkova, E., Kong, J., Eimicke, J. P., & IDEATel Consortium
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Published
2009-07-01
Volume
16
Issue
4
Pages
446-456
ISSN
  • 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-974X
OpenAlex
W2172016333
Cited by
379
References
11
FWCI
27.48
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: A Randomized Trial Comparing Telemedicine Case Management with Usual Care in Older, Ethnically Diverse, Medically Underserved Patients with Diabetes Mellitus: 5 Year Results of the IDEATel Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1197/jamia.m3157
The paper
Shea, S., Weinstock, R. S., Teresi, J. A., Palmas, W., Starren, J., Cimino, J. J., Lai, A. M., Field, L., Morin, P. C., Goland, R., Izquierdo, R. E., Ebner, S., Silver, S., Petkova, E., Kong, J., Eimicke, J. P., & IDEATel Consortium. (2009). A Randomized Trial Comparing Telemedicine Case Management with Usual Care in Older, Ethnically Diverse, Medically Underserved Patients with Diabetes Mellitus: 5 Year Results of the IDEATel Study. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. https://doi.org/10.1197/jamia.m3157

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.