Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 196

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Controlled Trial of Web-Based Diabetes Disease Management

Open access
Meigs, James B., Cagliero, Enrico, Dubey, Anil, Murphy-Sheehy, Patricia, Gildesgame, Catharyn, Chueh, Henry, Barry, Michael J., Singer, Daniel E., Nathan, David M.·2003·Diabetes Care

Abstract

OBJECTIVE—To test effects of a web-based decision support tool, the diabetes Disease Management Application (DMA), developed to improve evidence-based management of type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—We conducted a group randomized controlled trial of 12 intervention and 14 control staff providers and 307 intervention and 291 control patients with type 2 diabetes in a hospital-based internal medicine clinic. Providers were randomly assigned from May 1998 through April 1999 to have access to the DMA (intervention) or not to have access (control). The DMA displays interactive patient-specific clinical data, treatment advice, and links to other web-based care resources. We compared patients in the intervention and control groups for changes in processes and outcomes of care from the year preceding the study through the year of the study by intention-to-treat analysis. RESULTS—The DMA was used for 42% of scheduled patient visits. The number of HbA1c tests obtained per year increased significantly in the intervention group (+0.3 tests/year) compared with the control group (−0.04 tests/year, P = 0.008), as did the number of LDL cholesterol tests (intervention, +0.2 tests/year; control, +0.01 tests/year; P = 0.02) and the proportions of patients undergoing at least one foot examination per year (intervention, +9.8%; control, −0.7%; P = 0.003). Levels of HbA1c decreased by 0.2 in the intervention group and increased by 0.1 in the control group (P = 0.09); proportions of patients with LDL cholesterol levels <130 mg/dl increased by 20.3% in the intervention group and 10.5% in the control group (P = 0.5). CONCLUSIONS—Web-based patient-specific decision support has the potential to improve evidence-based parameters of diabetes care.

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 · 10.2337/diacare.26.3.750

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 196

Metadata

Authors
Meigs, J. B., Cagliero, E., Dubey, A., Murphy-Sheehy, P., Gildesgame, C., Chueh, H., Barry, M. J., Singer, D. E., & Nathan, D. M.
Venue
Diabetes Care
Published
2003-03-01
Volume
26
Issue
3
Pages
750-757
ISSN
  • 0149-5992 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-5548
OpenAlex
W2169526482
Cited by
196
References
2
FWCI
7.54
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: A Controlled Trial of Web-Based Diabetes Disease Management. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2337/diacare.26.3.750
The paper
Meigs, J. B., Cagliero, E., Dubey, A., Murphy-Sheehy, P., Gildesgame, C., Chueh, H., Barry, M. J., Singer, D. E., & Nathan, D. M. (2003). A Controlled Trial of Web-Based Diabetes Disease Management. Diabetes Care. https://doi.org/10.2337/diacare.26.3.750

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.