P Chakranon1, Y K Lai2, Y W Tang3, P Choudhary4, K Khunti5, S W H Lee3,6,7. 1. Faculty of Pharmacy, Silapakorn University, Pathom, Thailand. 2. Department of Pharmacy, Hospital Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Cheras, Malaysia. 3. School of Pharmacy, Monash University Malaysia, Bandar Sunway, Malaysia. 4. Department of Diabetes, School of Life Course Sciences, King's College London, London, UK. 5. Diabetes Research Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK. 6. Asian Centre for Evidence Synthesis in Population, Implementation and Clinical Outcomes (PICO), Health and Well-being Cluster, Global Asia in the 21st Century (GA21) Platform, Monash University Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia. 7. School of Pharmacy, Taylor's University Lakeside Campus, Jalan Taylors, Selangor, Malaysia.
Abstract
AIM: To summarize and evaluate the existing evidence on the effectiveness of distal technology with regard to multiple health outcomes in people with diabetes. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from database inception to 31 August 2018 for systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses of studies that examined the impact of distal technology and reported any clinical or patient-related outcomes among people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. RESULTS: The umbrella review identified 95 reviews, including 162 meta-analyses with 46 unique outcomes. Evidence from meta-analyses of randomized controlled studies supports the use of distal technology, especially telehealth and mHealth (healthcare delivered by mobile technology), in people with diabetes for improving HbA1c values by 2-4 mmol/mol (0.2-0.4%). For other health outcomes, such as changes in fasting plasma glucose levels, risk of diabetic ketoacidosis or frequency of severe hypoglycaemia, the evidence was weaker. No evidence was reported for most patient-reported outcomes including quality of life, self-efficacy and medication-taking. The evidence base was poor, with most studies rated as low to very low quality. CONCLUSION: Distal technologies were associated with a modest improvement in glycaemic control, but it was unclear if they improved major clinical outcomes or were cost-effective in people with diabetes. More robust research to improve wider outcomes in people with diabetes is needed before such technologies can be recommended as part of routine care for any patient group.
AIM: To summarize and evaluate the existing evidence on the effectiveness of distal technology with regard to multiple health outcomes in people with diabetes. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from database inception to 31 August 2018 for systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses of studies that examined the impact of distal technology and reported any clinical or patient-related outcomes among people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. RESULTS: The umbrella review identified 95 reviews, including 162 meta-analyses with 46 unique outcomes. Evidence from meta-analyses of randomized controlled studies supports the use of distal technology, especially telehealth and mHealth (healthcare delivered by mobile technology), in people with diabetes for improving HbA1c values by 2-4 mmol/mol (0.2-0.4%). For other health outcomes, such as changes in fasting plasma glucose levels, risk of diabetic ketoacidosis or frequency of severe hypoglycaemia, the evidence was weaker. No evidence was reported for most patient-reported outcomes including quality of life, self-efficacy and medication-taking. The evidence base was poor, with most studies rated as low to very low quality. CONCLUSION: Distal technologies were associated with a modest improvement in glycaemic control, but it was unclear if they improved major clinical outcomes or were cost-effective in people with diabetes. More robust research to improve wider outcomes in people with diabetes is needed before such technologies can be recommended as part of routine care for any patient group.
Authors: Mahima Sadanshiv; Lakshmanan Jeyaseelan; Henry Kirupakaran; Vikas Sonwani; Thambu David Sudarsanam Journal: BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care Date: 2020-07
Authors: Allison A Lewinski; Conor Walsh; Sharron Rushton; Diana Soliman; Scott M Carlson; Matthew W Luedke; David J Halpern; Matthew J Crowley; Ryan J Shaw; Jason A Sharpe; Anastasia-Stefania Alexopoulos; Amir Alishahi Tabriz; Jessica R Dietch; Diya M Uthappa; Soohyun Hwang; Katharine A Ball Ricks; Sarah Cantrell; Andrzej S Kosinski; Belinda Ear; Adelaide M Gordon; Jennifer M Gierisch; John W Williams; Karen M Goldstein Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2022-08-26 Impact factor: 7.076
Authors: Lori J Sacks; Cecilia T Pham; Nicola Fleming; Sandra L Neoh; Elif I Ekinci Journal: Diabetes Res Clin Pract Date: 2020-07-03 Impact factor: 5.602