HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Selby, J. V. Articles by Liu, J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Selby, J. V. Articles by Liu, J. Social Bookmarking                What's this?

Developing a Prediction Rule From Automated Clinical Databases to Identify High-Risk Patients in a Large Population With Diabetes

Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente of Northern California, Oakland, California

	ABSTRACT

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS RESULTS CONCLUSIONS APPENDIX References

 
OBJECTIVE—To develop and validate a prediction rule for identifying diabetic patients at high short-term risk of complications using automated data in a large managed care organization.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—Retrospective cohort analyses were performed in 57,722 diabetic members of Kaiser Permanente, Northern California, aged 19 years. Data from 1994 to 1995 were used to model risk for macro- and microvascular complications (n = 3,977), infectious complications (n = 1,580), and metabolic complications (n = 316) during 1996. Candidate predictors (n = 36) included prior inpatient and outpatient diagnoses, laboratory records, pharmacy records, utilization records, and survey data. Using split-sample validation, the risk scores derived from logistic regression models in half of the population were evaluated in the second half. Sensitivity, positive predictive value, and receiver operating characteristics curves were used to compare scores obtained from full models to those derived using simpler approaches.

RESULTS—History of prior complications or related outpatient diagnoses were the strongest predictors in each complications set. For patients without previous events, treatment with insulin alone, serum creatinine 1.3 mg/dl, use of two or more antihypertensive medications, HbA_1c >10%, and albuminuria/microalbuminuria were independent predictors of two or all three complications. Several risk scores derived from multivariate models were more efficient than simply targeting patients with elevated HbA_1c levels for identifying high-risk patients.

CONCLUSIONS—Simple prediction rules based on automated clinical data are useful in planning care management for populations with diabetes.

Abbreviations: AUC, area under the curve • HMO, health maintenance organization • OR, odds ratio • ROC, receiver operating characteristics

	INTRODUCTION

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS RESULTS CONCLUSIONS APPENDIX References

 
Approximately 4% of most managed care populations have diabetes (1,2), but these patients account for nearly 12% of total health care expenditures (2). These costs also reflect catastrophic events in the lives of patients, because a large fraction of total costs result from hospitalization for disease complications (2). Recognizing the burden of this illness, many managed care organizations have developed intensive diabetes care programs, featuring multidisciplinary clinics or nurse case management (3,4,5) to improve pharmacotherapy, preventive screening, and support for self-care. However, inclusion of all diabetic patients in intensive disease management programs, including those at low risk for complications, would diminish the cost-effectiveness of these programs.

Clinical prediction rules (6) are tools created by combining information from clinical data, usually using multivariate analyses, to estimate the probability of an outcome for individual patients. When applied to an entire population of members with diabetes, a prediction rule could be used to identify and rank members by their level of risk for complications. Despite the frequent availability of rich automated clinical data in health plan systems (7), prediction rules have not been widely used for diabetes. Instead, many programs focus solely on poor control of HbA_1c levels to identify those in need of more intensive intervention. This study seeks to develop and test a prediction rule using automated clinical data that can be applied at the population level to improve this strategy. Several approaches are compared to identify the simplest rule that efficiently identifies high-risk patients.

	RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS RESULTS CONCLUSIONS APPENDIX References

 
This report is based on a retrospective cohort analysis conducted in the Northern California Kaiser Permanente Diabetes Registry. Kaiser Permanente, which is a group model health maintenance organization (HMO), had 2.5 million enrollees during the study period. The registry (2) is an ongoing epidemiological cohort of all HMO members with diabetes identified from four automated databases: pharmacy prescriptions for diabetes medications, abnormal HbA_1c values (6.7%) in laboratory files, primary hospital discharge diagnoses of diabetes, and emergency department records of diabetes as the reason for visit. During the study period, this registry had a sensitivity of 90% when matched against >1,500 self-reported diabetic patients who responded to two large mailed surveys. The registry missed some diet-controlled subjects and the small proportion of members who never use the HMO’s services. The registry also has been found to contain 2.5% false positives or members who do not truly have diabetes (J.V.S., unpublished data).

For these analyses, data gathered from electronic databases and from a mailed survey during the 2-year baseline period (1994–1995) were used to predict three sets of complications of diabetes occurring during 1996. The study sample consisted of the 57,722 registry members who were aged 19 years and who were known to have diabetes by 1 January 1994; they were continuously enrolled in the health plan throughout the 2-year baseline period (1 January 1994 to 31 December 1995) and remained in the health plan for at least the first month of 1996. Continuous enrollment was defined as not having a membership gap of >2 months’ duration. We excluded 970 patients with no outpatient utilization (visits, laboratory tests, or prescriptions) during the baseline period, because they would provide few data on predictors, and they may well have received care, including care for complications, outside the HMO.

Study outcomes
Outcomes were complications requiring hospitalization during 1996; they were identified from principal discharge diagnoses in the HMO’s discharge databases (for 16 plan hospitals and for all claims received from out-of-plan hospitals). Complications were grouped into three sets: macro- and microvascular, infectious, and metabolic; they are listed by International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification discharge diagnosis code in Table A1 in the APPENDIX. Dichotomous dependent variables were created to indicate whether one or more complications from each set were noted during 1996.

Candidate predictors
The 36 potential predictors of complications (during the baseline period) are shown in Table A2 in the APPENDIX. These included hospital discharges for the same complications sets as the study outcomes and the outpatient diagnoses that are related to these complications. Dichotomous predictor variables were used to note occurrence during the baseline period of any complication-related hospitalization. Dichotomous predictors were also used to indicate the baseline presence of outpatient diagnoses that are closely related to either macro- and microvascular or infectious complications. For example, renal insufficiency and unstable angina are likely to be important predictors of future hospitalizations. No outpatient diagnoses related to metabolic complications were captured in this HMO’s data systems.

Other candidate predictors included laboratory results (HbA_1c, serum creatinine, and lipoprotein levels), pharmacy prescriptions (for hypoglycemic, lipid-lowering, and antihypertensive agents), outpatient visit counts by type, and responses to a 1994–1996 mailed survey (with telephone follow-up of nonrespondents) completed by 83% of the study sample. Survey items included demographics, self-reported behaviors, and information used to classify diabetes (age and obesity status at onset and patterns of insulin use).

Both clinical and survey databases have relatively high rates of missing data for potential predictors. Approximately 25–40% of cohort members had missing values for one or more key predictors, such as baseline HbA_1c, serum creatinine, cholesterol, smoking status, and BMI. Because we wished to develop a tool applicable to an entire population, it was important that these subjects were included in the models. We therefore used "missing" categories for several key variables. Continuous predictors were converted to ordered categorical variables for this purpose.

Data analyses
The cohort of 57,722 members was randomly split into derivation and validation data sets. Of all the subjects, >94% remained under observation throughout 1996. Of the remaining 6%, 52% were censored because of death rather than leaving the health plan. Because of nearly complete follow-up and a short observation period, we used logistic regression to model the data.

After examining bivariate associations of predictors and outcomes, separate stepwise logistic regression models were conducted in the derivation data set to build the best model for each complications set. On parameter estimates, P < 0.01 was required to include a predictor in each best model. Once each model was derived, coefficients for significant predictors were applied to predictor values of the validation data set members. Risk scores for each member were calculated by summing coefficients across all predictors, and the ability of these scores to predict complications in a new population was examined.

Based on preliminary analyses, four simpler approaches to identifying and targeting high-risk patients were identified and compared with the best model. At an early stage in our analyses, we noted that events or related outpatient diagnoses during the baseline period were strong predictors of each complications set. Therefore, the first alternative was to use a "prior events" strategy that simply targeted patients with either of these predictors. Preliminary analyses also revealed that risk scores based only on the first three variables entering each model were nearly as sensitive as scores from the best models. Therefore, we evaluated "reduced models" that included only these first three variables.

The third comparison approach tested a simplified numerical risk score derived by replacing significant model coefficients with integer values as follows: a value of 1.0 for a (significant) multivariate odds ratio (OR) between 1.1 and 1.49, 2.0 for an OR between 1.50 and 1.99, and 3.0 for an OR of 2.0, with corresponding negative numbers for significant ORs <1.0. To obtain integer values for age, which was the only continuous variable in any model, we calculated the age-specific OR distribution (relative to 20 years of age, which was the youngest age possible) using the model coefficients for 10-year increases in age and applied the same OR cut points to categorize the distribution into values from 0 to 3. The integer values were summed to yield a simple numerical score. If this approach performs nearly as well as the risk score from the best model, it yields a much simpler algorithm for use in other populations.

The fourth strategy was to simply rank patients on the basis of their average HbA_1c level during 1994–1995 and to select patients in descending order of these values. We used percentiles rather than absolute values for cut points because HbA_1c distributions vary across populations and over time.

Initial comparisons of these five approaches focused on sensitivity and positive predictive values in the validation data set. Continuous risk scores, which identified the 30% of patients with the highest predicted risk (or the highest HbA_1c levels), were compared at the cut point. This cut point was chosen to be consistent with our health plan’s current policy of planning more intensive interventions for 30% of the population. Given its distribution, the numerical score, which is ordinal, was cut as close to the upper 30th percentile as possible. For the prior events approach, the proportion with such an event is fixed. Continuous and ordinal scores were also compared across their entire range of values. Differences in areas under the curve (AUCs) of receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves were tested with ROC Analyzer (8,9), which uses a nonparametric method of estimating AUC and adjusts for the correlation of the two curves (10).

For patients without prior inpatient events or related outpatient diagnoses, we re-examined the utility of the four remaining approaches. In this subgroup, the number of macro- and microvascular complications, infectious complications, and metabolic complications was greatly reduced, leaving just 723 subjects who experienced at least one event in 1996 (561 with a macro- and microvascular event, 453 with an infectious event, and 95 with a metabolic event). Because all complications are important from a disease management perspective, and in light of the overlap of many important predictors for two or all three sets of complications, we combined these end points and modeled risk for any event. Age, sex, and race were not included in this model, despite associations with one or more outcomes in the models described above, because these characteristics present no options for risk reduction. By removing them from the models, many of the associated, mutable risk factors should contribute more strongly to risk scores. We further excluded the 3.5% of remaining patients with serum creatinine levels 2.0, reasoning that these subjects should already be targeted because of their known and very high-risk status.

	RESULTS

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS RESULTS CONCLUSIONS APPENDIX References

 
Number of subjects, demographic characteristics, and frequency of each set of complications were similar in the derivation and validation data sets (Table 1). Macro- and microvascular events occurred nearly three times as frequently as infectious events and >10 times as frequently as metabolic complications.

Comparisons of the best model with simpler approaches
For macro- and microvascular complications, selection of subjects on the basis of a previous event or related outpatient diagnosis (i.e., the first two variables to enter the model) was as efficient as using the best model, targeting essentially the same proportion of subjects and identifying exactly the same proportion (72%) of 1996 events (Table 3). For infectious and metabolic complications, a prior-events strategy identified far fewer subjects who would have had complications during 1996 than targeting the top 30% of subjects based on model-derived risk scores. However, prior-events strategies, as assessed by positive predictive values, were more efficient because far fewer than 30% of the population was targeted. Not surprisingly, the simple three-variable models, which included previous events and related diagnoses, also did nearly as well as full models, especially for macro- and microvascular complications. Comparisons of ROC curves between full and three-variable models revealed significant differences (0.01 < P < 0.06) for each, but differences in the AUCs were quite small (4%) for each, suggesting that measurement and inclusion of the remaining variables in the best models adds little to predictive ability.

An approach based on selecting subjects solely on the basis of elevated HbA_1c levels was far less efficient for each complication, whether evaluated at the upper 30% cut point or across the entire range using ROC curve comparisons.

Utility of risk scores in subjects without prior events
Having demonstrated the importance of targeting subjects with previous events or related diagnoses, we compared the remaining approaches in the reduced population of subjects without such markers (Table 4). The first three variables to enter the best model were an elevated serum creatinine level (three levels differed significantly from the reference group of <1.0 mg/dl) followed by use of antihypertensive agents (either one or more than one) and use of insulin as the only therapy. Other significant predictors included a prior emergency department visit, having more than seven primary care visits in the 2-year span, being a current or former smoker, having more than seven outpatient visits to specialists, an average HbA_1c level >10.0%, albuminuria or microalbuminuria, and not having microalbuminuria measured during the 2-year interval.

View larger version (57K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 1— Sensitivity for any 1996 event (macro- and microvascular, infectious, or metabolic) in the validation data set. , Decile of risk scores from full model; , reduced three-variable model; , average 1994–1995 HbA1c levels for subjects with no prior events or related outpatient diagnoses and serum creatinine <2.0; ——, numerical risk score.

	CONCLUSIONS

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS RESULTS CONCLUSIONS APPENDIX References

A relatively short-term (1 year) follow-up period was used in these analyses, because decision makers who fund expensive disease management programs are highly sensitive to short-term financial considerations (11). Pronk et al. (12) have shown that elevated risk factor levels translate to increased costs for diabetic patients in the short term, and two recent trials of intensive interventions for diabetes (5,13) have shown that hospitalization rates and costs of care can be reduced within 12 months. However, the major predictors in our models (hypertension, hyperglycemia, elevated serum creatinine, use of insulin only, albuminuria, and dyslipidemia) are highly consistent with previous epidemiological (14,15,16) and intervention studies (17,18,19,20,21,22,23) that used a long-term perspective.

Several aspects of the findings should be highlighted. The importance of secondary prevention is demonstrated by the very strong predictive power of prior complications and related outpatient diagnoses. Patients with one or both of these markers accounted for well over half of the complications in 1996 and should clearly be among the first targeted by population disease–management programs. More complex prediction scores, such as those developed here, would be most helpful for targeting primary prevention in the remaining 60–70% of the diabetic population. HbA_1c levels predicted increased risk for each set of complications, but model-based targeting improved substantially on selection that was based on elevated HbA_1c levels. The simple numerical score, which proved to be as accurate as the score calculated directly from the best-model coefficients, would be the most convenient approach to applying our findings in other populations. In our data, a score 7 identified 46% of subjects without prior complications and 66% of their complications in 1996.

Our analyses also indicate that sufficient information for predicting complications is captured in a very small number of commonly available variables. Even among patients with no prior events or related diagnoses, models containing just three variables were nearly as efficient as much more complex models in predicting short-term risk. Nearly all key variables come from data sources (hospital discharge files, outpatient visit claims, laboratory results, and pharmacy records) that are commonly available in health care systems.

Several limitations of these analyses should be kept in mind. First, these risk scores were developed for use by programs that aim to support rather than replace clinical judgment. Although the models confirm the importance of several known clinical risk factors, the model scores derived from automated data are neither sufficiently accurate nor sufficiently complete to supplant decision- making by physicians who treat individual patients in clinical settings. Other information available to the clinician, such as comorbidities or known noncompliance, could easily overrule score-based decisions. The high levels of missing predictor information in our clinically derived data would be considered a serious limitation in epidemiological analyses. However, our aim was to produce a disease-management tool applicable to all members of a population rather than a biological or epidemiological model of complications. By including "missing" as a value for several predictors, we also learned that "missingness" itself can sometimes signal increased risk. We repeated the best models from Table 2, excluding patients with any missing values. Although sample size dropped by as much as 75%, results were essentially identical for macro- and microvascular and infectious models. The metabolic-events model was not interpretable, because the number of end points dropped to 27. Although age was a strong predictor and sex was a weak but significant predictor in at least one of the best models (Table 2), we included neither variable in the final model, because it would make little sense to target only the oldest patients or only one sex for disease management activities.

In conclusion, automated data available in many HMOs could be used to more efficiently identify diabetic patients at high risk for complications. As databases derived directly from electronic medical records replace current systems, the precision and completeness of many predictors will improve, which will further add to the accuracy of predictive models.

	APPENDIX

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS RESULTS CONCLUSIONS APPENDIX References

 

	ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

 
This research was supported in part by a grant from Pfizer Pharmaceuticals. The authors wish to thank Lyn Wender for her editorial assistance.

	FOOTNOTES

 
Address correspondence and reprint requests to Joe V. Selby, Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente, 3505 Broadway, Oakland, CA 94611. E-mail: jvs{at}dor.kaiser.org.

Received for publication 9 January 2001 and accepted in revised form 12 April 2001.

A table elsewhere in this issue shows conventional and Système International (SI) units and conversion factors for many substances.

	References

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS RESULTS CONCLUSIONS APPENDIX References

 

1. Rubin RJ, Altman WM, Mendelson DN: Health care expenditures for people with diabetes mellitus. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 78:809A–812A, 1992
   
2. Selby JV, Ray GT, Zhang D, Colby CJ: Excess costs of medical care for patients with diabetes mellitus in a managed care population. Diabetes Care 20:1396–1402, 1997[Abstract]
   
3. Peters AL, Davidson MB: Management of patients with diabetes by nurses with support of subspecialists. HMO Pract 9:8–13, 1995[Medline]
   
4. Aubert RE, Herman WH, Waters J, Moore W, Sutton D, Peterson BL, Bailey CM, Koplan JP: Nurse case management to improve glycemic control in diabetic patients in a health maintenance organization. Ann Intern Med 129:605–612, 1998[Abstract/Free Full Text]
   
5. Sadur CN, Moline N, Costa M, Michalik D, Mendlowitz D, Roller S, Watson R, Swain BE, Selby JV, Javorski WC: Diabetes management in a health maintenance organization: efficacy of care management using cluster visits. Diabetes Care 22:2011–2017, 1999[Abstract/Free Full Text]
   
6. Laupacis A, Sekar N, Stiell IG: Clinical prediction rules: a review and suggested modifications of methodological standards. JAMA 277:488–494, 1997[Abstract]
   
7. Selby JV: Linking automated databases for research in managed care settings. Ann Intern Med 127:719–724, 1997[Abstract/Free Full Text]
   
8. Centor RM, Keightley J: ROC Analyzer (computer software). Washington DC, American Association of Medical Systems and Informatics, 1988
   
9. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ: The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operation characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 143:29–36, 1982[Abstract/Free Full Text]
   
10. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ: A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristics curves derived from the same cases. Radiology 148:839–843, 1983[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
11. Shulkin DJ: Understanding the economics of succeeding in disease management. Manag Care Interface 12:98–104, 1999[Medline]
    
12. Pronk NP, Goodman MJ, O’Connor PJ, Martinson BC: Relationship between modifiable health risks and short-term health care charges. JAMA 282:2235–2239, 1999[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
13. Rubin RJ, Dietrich KA, Hawk AD: Clinical and economic impact of implementing a comprehensive diabetes management program in managed care. J Clin Endo Metab 83:2635–2642, 1998[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
14. Hypertension in Diabetes Study (HDS). II. Increased risk of cardiovascular complications in hypertensive type 2 diabetic patients. J Hypertens 11:319–325, 1993[Medline]
    
15. Lehto S, Ronnemaa T, Haffner SM, Pyorala K, Kallio V, Laakso M: Dyslipidemia and hyperglycemia predict coronary heart disease events in middle-aged patients with NIDDM. Diabetes 46:1354–1359, 1997[Abstract]
    
16. Aronow WS: Usefulness of serum creatinine as a marker for coronary events in elderly patients with either systemic hypertension or diabetes mellitus. Am J Cardiol 68:678–679, 1991[Medline]
    
17. The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group: The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 329:977–986, 1993[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
18. UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group: Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes: UKPDS 33. Lancet 352:837–853, 1998[Medline]
    
19. UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group: Tight blood pressure control and risk of macrovascular complications in type 2 diabetes: UKPDS 38. BMJ 317:703–713, 1998[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
20. Curb JD, Pressel SL, Cutler JA, Savage PJ, Applegate WB, Black H, Camel G, Davis BR, Frost PH, Gonzalez N, Guthrie G, Oberman A, Rutan GH, Stamler J: Effect of diuretic-based antihypertensive treatment on cardiovascular disease risk in older diabetic patients with isolated systolic hypertension. JAMA 276:1886–1892, 1996[Abstract]
    
21. Hansson L, Zanchetti A, Carruthers SG: Effects of intensive blood-pressure lowering and low-dose aspirin in patients with hypertension: principal results of the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) randomised trial. Lancet 351:1755–1762, 1998[Medline]
    
22. Pyorala K, Pedersen TR, Kjekshus J, Faergeman O, Olsson AG, Thorgeirsson G: Cholesterol lowering with simvastatin improves prognosis of diabetic patients with coronary heart disease: a subgroup analysis of the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S) Diabetes Care20:614–620, 1997
    
23. Koskinen P, Manttari M, ManninenV, Huttunen JK, Heinonen OP, Frick MH: Coronary heart disease incidence in NIDDM patients in the Helsinki Heart Study. Diabetes Care 15:820–825, 1992[Abstract]
    

CiteULike

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati

This article has been cited by other articles:

				H. H Moffet, N. Adler, D. Schillinger, A. T Ahmed, B. Laraia, J. V Selby, R. Neugebauer, J. Y Liu, M. M Parker, M. Warton, et al. Cohort Profile: The Diabetes Study of Northern California (DISTANCE)--objectives and design of a survey follow-up study of social health disparities in a managed care population Int. J. Epidemiol., March 7, 2008; (2008) dyn040v1. [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. J. O'Connor, A. L. Crain, W. A. Rush, J. M. Sperl-Hillen, J. J. Gutenkauf, and J. E. Duncan Impact of an Electronic Medical Record on Diabetes Quality of Care Ann. Fam. Med, July 1, 2005; 3(4): 300 - 306. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. H.B. Lin, W. Katon, M. Von Korff, C. Rutter, G. E. Simon, M. Oliver, P. Ciechanowski, E. J. Ludman, T. Bush, and B. Young Relationship of Depression and Diabetes Self-Care, Medication Adherence, and Preventive Care Diabetes Care, September 1, 2004; 27(9): 2154 - 2160. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. S. Ford, W. H. Giles, and A. H. Mokdad The distribution of 10-Year risk for coronary heart disease among U.S. adults: Findings from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., May 19, 2004; 43(10): 1791 - 1796. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. A. Helmer, C.-L. Tseng, M. Brimacombe, M. Rajan, N. Stiptzarov, and L. Pogach Applying Diabetes-Related Prevention Quality Indicators to a National Cohort of Veterans With Diabetes Diabetes Care, November 1, 2003; 26(11): 3017 - 3023. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. M. Nelson and E. J. Boyko Predicting Impaired Glucose Tolerance Using Common Clinical Information: Data from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey Diabetes Care, July 1, 2003; 26(7): 2058 - 2062. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				OTHER ARTICLES NOTED (Nov 01 to 18 Oct 02) Evid. Based Nurs., January 1, 2003; 6(1): e1 - 1. [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. J. Karter, A. Ferrara, J. Y. Liu, H. H. Moffet, L. M. Ackerson, and J. V. Selby Ethnic Disparities in Diabetic Complications in an Insured Population JAMA, May 15, 2002; 287(19): 2519 - 2527. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Smith Several simple rules predicted complications in high risk patients with diabetes Evid. Based Med., May 1, 2002; 7(3): 96 - 96. [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. J. O'Connor Organizing Diabetes Care: Identify, Monitor, Prioritize, Intensify Diabetes Care, September 1, 2001; 24(9): 1515 - 1516. [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Selby, J. V. Articles by Liu, J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Selby, J. V. Articles by Liu, J. Social Bookmarking                What's this?