• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

通过选择血糖控制绩效指标阈值来减轻病例组合因素的影响。

Mitigating case mix factors by choice of glycemic control performance measure threshold.

作者信息

Bainbridge Kathleen E, Cowie Catherine C, Rust Keith F, Fradkin Judith E

机构信息

Social & Scientific Systems, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.

出版信息

Diabetes Care. 2008 Sep;31(9):1754-60. doi: 10.2337/dc07-2010. Epub 2008 May 28.

DOI:10.2337/dc07-2010
PMID:18509211
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2518340/
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Performance measures are tools for assessing quality of care but may be influenced by patient factors. We investigated how currently endorsed performance measures for glycemic control in diabetes may be influenced by case mix composition. We assessed differences in A1C performance measure threshold attainment by case mix factors for A1C >9% and examined how lowering the threshold to A1C >8% or >7% changed these differences.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Using data from the 1999-2002 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey for 843 adults self-reporting diabetes, we computed the mean difference in A1C threshold attainment of >9, >8, and >7% by various case mix factors. The mean difference is the average percentage point difference in threshold attainment for population groups compared with that for the overall population.

RESULTS

Diabetes medication was the only factor for which the difference in threshold attainment increased at lower thresholds, with mean differences of 5.7 percentage points at A1C >9% (reference), 10.1 percentage points at A1C >8% (P < 0.05), and 14.1 percentage points at A1C >7% (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

As 87% of U.S. adults have A1C <9%, a performance measure threshold of >9% will not drive major improvements in glycemic control. Lower thresholds do not exacerbate differences in threshold attainment for most factors. Reporting by diabetes medication use may compensate for heterogeneous case mix when a performance measure threshold of A1C >8% or lower is used.

摘要

目的

绩效指标是评估医疗质量的工具,但可能会受到患者因素的影响。我们研究了目前认可的糖尿病血糖控制绩效指标可能如何受到病例组合构成的影响。我们评估了糖化血红蛋白(A1C)>9%时,不同病例组合因素在A1C绩效指标阈值达成方面的差异,并研究将阈值降低至A1C>8%或>7%如何改变这些差异。

研究设计与方法

利用1999 - 2002年全国健康与营养检查调查中843名自述患有糖尿病的成年人的数据,我们计算了不同病例组合因素在A1C阈值达成>9%、>8%和>7%时的平均差异。平均差异是各人群组在阈值达成方面与总体人群相比的平均百分点差异。

结果

糖尿病用药是唯一一个在较低阈值下阈值达成差异增加的因素,在A1C>9%(参考值)时平均差异为5.7个百分点,在A1C>8%时为10.1个百分点(P<0.05),在A1C>7%时为14.1个百分点(P<0.001)。

结论

由于87%的美国成年人糖化血红蛋白(A1C)<9%,>9%的绩效指标阈值不会推动血糖控制取得重大改善。对于大多数因素而言,较低的阈值不会加剧阈值达成方面的差异。当使用A1C>8%或更低的绩效指标阈值时,按糖尿病用药情况报告可能会弥补病例组合的异质性。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/81cf/2518340/6a3073ba3d55/zdc0090871590001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/81cf/2518340/6a3073ba3d55/zdc0090871590001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/81cf/2518340/6a3073ba3d55/zdc0090871590001.jpg

相似文献

1
Mitigating case mix factors by choice of glycemic control performance measure threshold.通过选择血糖控制绩效指标阈值来减轻病例组合因素的影响。
Diabetes Care. 2008 Sep;31(9):1754-60. doi: 10.2337/dc07-2010. Epub 2008 May 28.
2
Is glycemic control improving in U.S. adults?美国成年人的血糖控制情况正在改善吗?
Diabetes Care. 2008 Jan;31(1):81-6. doi: 10.2337/dc07-1572. Epub 2007 Oct 12.
3
Improvements in diabetes processes of care and intermediate outcomes: United States, 1988-2002.糖尿病护理流程及中间结果的改善:美国,1988 - 2002年
Ann Intern Med. 2006 Apr 4;144(7):465-74. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-144-7-200604040-00005.
4
Impact of active versus usual algorithmic titration of basal insulin and point-of-care versus laboratory measurement of HbA1c on glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes: the Glycemic Optimization with Algorithms and Labs at Point of Care (GOAL A1C) trial.基础胰岛素主动滴定与常规算法滴定以及即时检测糖化血红蛋白(HbA1c)与实验室检测对2型糖尿病患者血糖控制的影响:即时检测算法与实验室糖化血红蛋白血糖优化(GOAL A1C)试验
Diabetes Care. 2006 Jan;29(1):1-8. doi: 10.2337/diacare.29.01.06.dc05-1058.
5
Using Indirect Measures to Identify Geographic Hot Spots of Poor Glycemic Control: Cross-sectional Comparisons With an A1C Registry.使用间接指标识别血糖控制不良的地理热点:与 A1C 登记处的横断面比较。
Diabetes Care. 2018 Jul;41(7):1438-1447. doi: 10.2337/dc18-0181. Epub 2018 Apr 24.
6
Racial and ethnic differences in mean plasma glucose, hemoglobin A1c, and 1,5-anhydroglucitol in over 2000 patients with type 2 diabetes.2000多名2型糖尿病患者的平均血糖、糖化血红蛋白和1,5-脱水葡萄糖醇的种族和民族差异。
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2009 May;94(5):1689-94. doi: 10.1210/jc.2008-1940. Epub 2009 Mar 10.
7
Differences in A1C by race and ethnicity among patients with impaired glucose tolerance in the Diabetes Prevention Program.糖尿病预防计划中糖耐量受损患者的糖化血红蛋白(A1C)在种族和族裔间的差异。
Diabetes Care. 2007 Oct;30(10):2453-7. doi: 10.2337/dc06-2003. Epub 2007 May 29.
8
A randomized comparison of the terms estimated average glucose versus hemoglobin A1C.估计平均血糖与糖化血红蛋白A1C的随机对照比较。
Diabetes Educ. 2009 Jul-Aug;35(4):596-602. doi: 10.1177/0145721709336298.
9
Association of A1C and fasting plasma glucose levels with diabetic retinopathy prevalence in the U.S. population: Implications for diabetes diagnostic thresholds.美国人群中 A1C 和空腹血糖水平与糖尿病视网膜病变患病率的关联:对糖尿病诊断阈值的启示。
Diabetes Care. 2009 Nov;32(11):2027-32. doi: 10.2337/dc09-0440.
10
Addressing literacy and numeracy to improve diabetes care: two randomized controlled trials.解决读写和计算能力问题以改善糖尿病护理:两项随机对照试验。
Diabetes Care. 2009 Dec;32(12):2149-55. doi: 10.2337/dc09-0563. Epub 2009 Sep 9.

引用本文的文献

1
Diabetes performance measures: current status and future directions.糖尿病绩效指标:现状与未来方向。
Diabetes Care. 2011 Jul;34(7):1651-9. doi: 10.2337/dc11-0735.
2
Hidden complexities in assessment of glycemic outcomes: are quality rankings aligned with treatment?评估血糖结果中的隐藏复杂性:质量排名与治疗是否一致?
Diabetes Care. 2010 Oct;33(10):2133-9. doi: 10.2337/dc09-1665. Epub 2010 Jul 9.
3
Impact of pay for performance on ethnic disparities in intermediate outcomes for diabetes: a longitudinal study.绩效薪酬对糖尿病中间结局种族差异的影响:一项纵向研究。

本文引用的文献

1
Standards of medical care in diabetes--2008.2008年糖尿病医疗护理标准
Diabetes Care. 2008 Jan;31 Suppl 1:S12-54. doi: 10.2337/dc08-S012.
2
Race and ethnic differences in glycemic control among adults with diagnosed diabetes in the United States.美国已确诊糖尿病成年人血糖控制方面的种族和族裔差异。
Ethn Dis. 2007 Summer;17(3):529-35.
3
Is glycemic control improving in U.S. adults?美国成年人的血糖控制情况正在改善吗?
Diabetes Care. 2009 Mar;32(3):404-9. doi: 10.2337/dc08-0912. Epub 2008 Dec 10.
Diabetes Care. 2008 Jan;31(1):81-6. doi: 10.2337/dc07-1572. Epub 2007 Oct 12.
4
Trends in A1C concentrations among U.S. adults with diagnosed diabetes from 1999 to 2004.1999年至2004年美国成年糖尿病确诊患者的糖化血红蛋白(A1C)浓度变化趋势。
Diabetes Care. 2008 Jan;31(1):102-4. doi: 10.2337/dc07-0565. Epub 2007 Oct 12.
5
The performance of performance measures.绩效指标的表现。
Am J Manag Care. 2007 Oct;13(10):547-9.
6
Glycemic control and type 2 diabetes mellitus: the optimal hemoglobin A1c targets. A guidance statement from the American College of Physicians.血糖控制与2型糖尿病:最佳糖化血红蛋白目标。美国医师学会的一份指导声明。
Ann Intern Med. 2007 Sep 18;147(6):417-22. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-147-6-200709180-00012.
7
Differences in A1C by race and ethnicity among patients with impaired glucose tolerance in the Diabetes Prevention Program.糖尿病预防计划中糖耐量受损患者的糖化血红蛋白(A1C)在种族和族裔间的差异。
Diabetes Care. 2007 Oct;30(10):2453-7. doi: 10.2337/dc06-2003. Epub 2007 May 29.
8
All-or-nothing treatment targets make bad performance measures.全或无的治疗目标并非良好的绩效衡量标准。
Am J Manag Care. 2007 Mar;13(3):126-8.
9
Automated review of electronic health records to assess quality of care for outpatients with heart failure.对电子健康记录进行自动审查,以评估心力衰竭门诊患者的护理质量。
Ann Intern Med. 2007 Feb 20;146(4):270-7. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-146-4-200702200-00006.
10
Measuring progress toward achieving hemoglobin A1c goals in diabetes care: pass/fail or partial credit.衡量糖尿病护理中实现糖化血红蛋白目标的进展:及格/不及格还是部分得分。
JAMA. 2007 Feb 7;297(5):520-3. doi: 10.1001/jama.297.5.520.