MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089130237 · doi:10.3325/cmj.2008.49.757

Medical Audit of Diabetes Mellitus in Primary Care Setting in Bosnia and Herzegovina

2008· article· en· W2089130237 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ahmed Novo, Irena Jokić

Bibliographic record

VenueCroatian Medical Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiabetes mellitusFamily medicineType 2 Diabetes MellitusBody mass indexMedical recordFamily historyType 2 diabetesAuditInternal medicineEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: To assess the quality of diabetes care provided by family medicine teams in primary health centers in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BH) through a medical audit, addressing the extent to which clinical practice complied with pre-determined explicit criteria of long-term management. METHOD: Retrospective analysis included randomly selected medical records of patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus treated by 18 family medicine teams at 5 locations in BH, included in the Canadian International Development Agency/World Health Organization project "Strengthening health care systems in BH with focus on primary health care/family medicine model." Audit record form contained 24 questions on sex, age, diabetes type, body mass index (BMI), hypertension, family anamnesis, annual examinations (HbA1C, BMI, lipid profile or total cholesterol, blood creatinine, neurological examination, urinalysis for albuminuria, foot care, and examination of ocular fundus), smoking habits, alcohol consumption, patient education, prescribed insulin and other drugs, and patient's health care-seeking behavior. Standardized and record forms were returned anonymously with 99.3% response rate. RESULTS: Records of 536 patients with diabetes were analyzed (64% women and 87% patients with diabetes mellitus type 2). Family medicine teams showed poor compliance with established criteria for diabetes control. Metabolic control (69.5%) was acceptable, but the level of monitoring complications of diabetes (foot and ocular fundus examined in 53.4% and 53% of patients, respectively) was low. There were also considerable variations in diabetes management between different centers as well as between the teams in the same center. CONCLUSION: The audit revealed deficiencies in the quality of diabetes care and variations in care provision between primary care teams. Clinical guidelines and continuing education about acceptable diabetes care should be developed and implemented in BH.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCroatian Medical JournalSame topicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsFrench-language works237,207