Table 16: Impact of eTools on Lipid Tests Conducted.
| Author, Year | Study Design | Length of Follow-up | Sample Size, n (Intervention/Control) | Results (Intervention/Control) | Effect Estimate (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total Cholesterol | |||||
| Montori et al, 2002 (37) | RCT | 24 months | 399/208 | 84%/79% of patients |
aORb 1.4 (0.8–2.3) |
| Branger et al, 1999 (32) | Observational | 1 year | 215/60 | 149(0.7)/25(0.4) measures (per patient) |
Mean difference 0.30 (0.03−0.57) |
| Herrin et al, 2012 (40) | Observational | 5 years | 10,017/35,033 patient years |
93.7/87.4 of patients |
aORa 0.9 (0.8–1.0) |
| Triglycerides | |||||
| Montori et al, 2002 (37) | RCT | 24 months | 399/208 | 82%/75% of patients |
aORb 5.0 (0.9–2.4) |
| Branger et al, 1999 (32) | Observational | 1 year | 215/60 | 52 (0.2)/7 (0.1) measures (per patient) |
Mean difference 0.10 (0.02−0.18) |
| Herrin et al, 2012 (40) | Observational | 5 years | 10,017/35,033 patient years |
94.9%/89.7% of patients |
aORa 0.8 (0.7−0.9) |
Abbreviations: aOR, adjusted odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; eTool, electronic tool; RCT, randomized controlled trial.
a
Adjusted for age, sex, insulin usage, and year of study.
b
Adjusted with logistic regression; no further details available.