↓ Skip to main content

The Impact of Adherence to Screening Guidelines and of Diabetes Clinics Referral on Morbidity and Mortality in Diabetes

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, April 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Impact of Adherence to Screening Guidelines and of Diabetes Clinics Referral on Morbidity and Mortality in Diabetes
Published in
PLOS ONE, April 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0033839
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carlo Giorda, Roberta Picariello, Elisa Nada, Barbara Tartaglino, Lisa Marafetti, Giuseppe Costa, Roberto Gnavi

Abstract

Despite the heightened awareness of diabetes as a major health problem, evidence on the impact of assistance and organizational factors, as well as of adherence to recommended care guidelines, on morbidity and mortality in diabetes is scanty. We identified diabetic residents in Torino, Italy, as of 1st January 2002, using multiple independent data sources. We collected data on several laboratory tests and specialist medical examinations to compare primary versus specialty care management of diabetes and the fulfillment of a quality-of-care indicator based on existing screening guidelines (GCI). Then, we performed regression analyses to identify associations of these factors with mortality and cardiovascular morbidity over a 4 year-follow-up. Patients with the lowest degree of quality of care (i.e. only cared for by primary care and with no fulfillment of GCI) had worse RRs for all-cause (1.72 [95% CI 1.57-1.89]), cardiovascular (1.74 [95% CI 1.50-2.01]) and cancer (1.35 [95% CI 1.14-1.61]) mortality, compared with those with the highest quality of care. They also showed increased RRs for incidence of major cardiovascular events up to 2.03 (95% CI 1.26-3.28) for lower extremity amputations. Receiving specialist care itself increased survival, but was far more effective when combined with the fulfillment of GCI. Throughout the whole set of analysis, implementation of guidelines emerged as a strong modifier of prognosis. We conclude that management of diabetic patients with a pathway based on both primary and specialist care is associated with a favorable impact on all-cause mortality and CV incidence, provided that guidelines are implemented.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 55 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 13%
Student > Postgraduate 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Researcher 5 9%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 13 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 7%
Psychology 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Computer Science 2 4%
Other 10 18%
Unknown 12 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 April 2012.
All research outputs
#15,242,847
of 22,664,267 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#129,806
of 193,506 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,394
of 161,135 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,379
of 3,716 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,664,267 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,506 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 161,135 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,716 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.