Table 2

Comparison results
Group N Absolute difference in“Missing” fraction
Mean Δ (SEM*)% 95% CI*
CDMS-associated note – CDMS chart 31 15.75 (2.22) 11.39, 20.11**
Provider 1 10 11.25 (3.20) 4.01, 18.49**
Provider 2 10 23.13 (3.85) 14.42, 31.83**
Provider 3 11 13.07 (4.08) 3.97, 22.16**
Usual-care – CDMS chart 30 16.47 (3.02) 10.55, 22.41**
Provider 1 10 13.75 (5.65) 0.96, 26.54**
Provider 2 9 29.17 (6.25) 14.75, 43.58**
Provider 3 11 8.52 (3.29) 1.18, 15.86**
Usual-care note – CDMS-associated 30 0.82% (3.91) −8.48, 6.84
Provider 1 10 2.50 (4.95) −8.69, 13.69
Provider 2 9 5.56 (6.46) −9.34, 20.45
Provider 3 11 −4.55 (4.62) −14.85, 5.76

*Estimated assuming an exchangeable covariance structure [26]; **p ≤ 0.05; CDMS, Chronic disease management system; SEM, Standard error of the mean; CI, Confidence interval.

Roshanov et al.

Roshanov et al. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 2012 12:63   doi:10.1186/1472-6947-12-63

Open Data