Last updated July 18, 2026
Key finding
The completeness (recall) of the system was 91% when compared to comments made by at least two of the three experts.
This study evaluated the effectiveness of two automated systems for assessing care quality in type 2 diabetes management, finding high completeness and correctness in system comments.
Quick read
The essential study design details in one scan.
EvidenceScore™
Moderate
Study type
RCTs
Follow-up
Short-Term (≤3 mo)
Risk of bias
High Risk
Save research, organize studies, and quickly find important evidence again.
Plain-language summary
A plain-language read of the study’s main message and where it applies.
Study focus
This study evaluated the effectiveness of two automated systems for assessing care quality in type 2 diabetes management, finding high completeness and correctness in system comments.
These findings are significant as they demonstrate the potential for automated systems to enhance the quality of diabetes care. By improving compliance assessments, healthcare providers can ensure better management of type 2 diabetes, ultimately leading to improved patient outcomes.
The study design was non-randomized, which may affect the robustness of findings. Effectiveness of interventions remains unclear due to lack of statistical significance. Generalizability may be limited based on the specific population studied.
Published in
Publication details and source links for this paper.
Avner H, Irit H, Deeb DN, Aya B, Yuval S, Monica DCDO. Automated guideline-based care quality assessment in type 2 diabetes management: A new approach. PLOS ONE. 2024;19(5):e0303542. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0303542
The completeness of system comments was 91%, indicating high reliability.
The correctness of system comments was 81%, showing good precision.
89% of expert comments were deemed important, highlighting the relevance of the assessments.
Expert correctness scores were high, with 99%, 91%, and 88% respectively.
Evidence network
Understand where this research contributes within the broader evidence network.
This study contributes evidence to Bidirectional Knowledge-Based Assessment of Compliance (BiKBAC) method, DiscovErr system and Completeness of system comments, Correctness of system comments, Expert correctness scores, and 1 more.
This study contributes evidence to
Primary intervention
Bidirectional Knowledge-Based Assessment of Compliance (BiKBAC) method
Primary outcomes
Intervention and outcome relationships this study adds to the evidence network.
Editorial context
See why this paper is useful beyond its individual results.
Evidence network role
This section describes how the study fits into the current evidence network. It does not determine whether an intervention works on its own.
0
Related topics
4
Evidence pairs
0
Related studies
Core evidence
The primary outcomes reported in this study.
Bidirectional Knowledge-Based Assessment of Compliance (BiKBAC) method → Completeness of system comments
Bidirectional Knowledge-Based Assessment of Compliance (BiKBAC) method → Completeness of system comments
Bidirectional Knowledge-Based Assessment of Compliance (BiKBAC) method → Correctness of system comments
Bidirectional Knowledge-Based Assessment of Compliance (BiKBAC) method → Correctness of system comments
DiscovErr system → Expert correctness scores
DiscovErr system → Expert correctness scores
DiscovErr system → Messages flagged for revision by expert panel
DiscovErr system → Messages flagged for revision by expert panel
Evidence Library
Save research, organize studies, and quickly find important evidence again.
Evidence Library
Save research, organize studies, and quickly find important evidence again.
Explore related studies, evidence collections, and research questions.
Relationships organized using the Dediabetes Evidence Intelligence™ framework.
This study contributes to evidence on Bidirectional Knowledge-Based Assessment of Compliance (BiKBAC) method and Completeness of system comments, Bidirectional Knowledge-Based Assessment of Compliance (BiKBAC) method and Correctness of system comments.
This study contributes to the evidence on the following intervention-outcome relationships.
Devices & Technology
Devices & Technology
Curated evidence collections and hubs this study is part of.
All studies on Bidirectional Knowledge-Based Assessment of Compliance (BiKBAC) method
Contributes to Bidirectional Knowledge-Based Assessment of Compliance (BiKBAC) method evidence base.
All studies measuring Completeness of system comments
Measures Completeness of system comments as a key outcome.
All studies measuring Correctness of system comments
Measures Correctness of system comments as a key outcome.
Latest published studies
Published within the last 2 years.
Jump to pre-filtered views in Evidence Explorer.
1 results
1 results
1 results
1 results
1 results
Generated from the study's connected evidence using Evidence Intelligence™.
Bidirectional Knowledge-Based Assessment of Compliance (BiKBAC) method appears to improve Completeness of system comments.
ConsistencyScore™: Consistency cannot yet be determined from the available evidence.
Ranked evidence signals
Completeness of system comments
EvidenceScore™ Emerging | EvidenceScore™ 59.0 | strong positive | ConsistencyScore™ Unclear | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is based on a single supporting study.
Limitations
Bidirectional Knowledge-Based Assessment of Compliance (BiKBAC) method appears to improve Correctness of system comments.
ConsistencyScore™: Consistency cannot yet be determined from the available evidence.
Ranked evidence signals
Correctness of system comments
EvidenceScore™ Emerging | EvidenceScore™ 59.0 | strong positive | ConsistencyScore™ Unclear | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is based on a single supporting study.
Limitations
DiscovErr system appears to improve Expert correctness scores.
ConsistencyScore™: Consistency cannot yet be determined from the available evidence.
Ranked evidence signals
Expert correctness scores
EvidenceScore™ Emerging | EvidenceScore™ 59.0 | strong positive | ConsistencyScore™ Unclear | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is based on a single supporting study.
Limitations
DiscovErr system appears to improve Messages flagged for revision by expert panel.
ConsistencyScore™: Consistency cannot yet be determined from the available evidence.
Ranked evidence signals
Messages flagged for revision by expert panel
EvidenceScore™ Emerging | EvidenceScore™ 59.0 | strong positive | ConsistencyScore™ Unclear | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is based on a single supporting study.
Limitations
Next steps
Choose a next path through related evidence topics, Evidence Explorer views, and research summaries.
Open broader Evidence Explorer views for this relationship.
Read related research summaries.
Focused on evidence, not advertising.
Your data is always protected.
New studies added every day.
