Cited by 34Diabetes Management and EducationDiabetes Treatment and ManagementDiabetes Management and Research

Diabetes control in a primary care setting : A retrospective study of 651 patients

Open access
Al-Hussein, FahadA·2008·Annals of Saudi Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: As part of an ongoing evaluation of the process of care, the management of type 2 diabetes in primary healthcare settings was studied in a series of audits with the objective of improving diabetes care in a primary care center of the Saudi National Guard Health Affairs, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. METHODS: A sample of 30 files was randomly selected every 2 weeks from a sampling frame of medical records of type 2 diabetes patients seen over the previous two weeks. The criterion of good management was arbitrarily defined as a glycated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) less than 7%, with a test frequency of once every 3 months. The proportion of patients not conforming to the criterion was reported back to the care providers. Specially trained nurses did all randomization, data extraction, and entry. RESULTS: Data were extracted form 651 medical records, including 355 (54.5%) for females and 296 (45.5%) for males. Both the mean and median age of those studied was 53 years. Mean HbA(1c) was 9.0+/-2.0%, mean fasting plasma glucose was 9.9A+/-3.9 mmol/L, and mean 2-hour postprandial plasma glucose was 15.0+/-5.3 mmol/L. In 20.6% (134/651) (95% CI, 17.5%-23.9%) of patients the HbA(1c) level was less than 7%. Only 10.4% (68/651) (95% CI, 8.2%-13.0%) had HbA(1c) measured in the previous 3 months that was less than 7.0% and thus met the criterion for good management. In the previous 3 months, 55.4% (95% CI, 51.5%-59.3%) had been tested for HbA(1c). CONCLUSION: Management of diabetes at the primary care level leaves much to be desired. There is a need for an ongoing process of evaluation to follow up the implementation of care guidelines.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4103/0256-4947.51700

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The prevalence of poor glycemic control in this study is similar to other Saudi populations.

    “This was significantly similar to other Saudi populations. Several studies reported similar prevalence of poor glycemic control (73%, 76%, and 79.4%) [26–28].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Al-Hussein, F.
Venue
Annals of Saudi Medicine
Published
2008
Volume
28
Issue
4
Pages
267
ISSN
0256-4947 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1994160511
Cited by
34
References
3
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 3
FWCI
0.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
  • Annals of Saudi Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • Annals of Saudi Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
Keywords
type 2 diabetes, glycemic control, HbA1c, primary care, diabetes care quality, fasting blood glucose, postprandial blood glucose
MeSH terms
Analysis of Variance, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Primary Health Care, Retrospective Studies, Saudi Arabia, Statistics, Nonparametric

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