Cited by 204Telemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationDiabetes Management and EducationDiabetes Management and Research

Comparative effectiveness of telemedicine strategies on type 2 diabetes management: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Open access
Lee, Shaun Wen Huey, Chan, Carina Ka Yee, Chua, Siew Siang, Chaiyakunapruk, Nathorn·2017·Scientific Reports

Abstract

The effects of telemedicine strategies on the management of diabetes is not clear. This study aimed to investigate the impact of different telemedicine strategies on glycaemic control management of type 2 diabetes patients. A search was performed in 6 databases from inception until September 2016 for randomized controlled studies that examined the use of telemedicine in adults with type 2 diabetes. Studies were independently extracted and classified according to the following telemedicine strategies: teleeducation, telemonitoring, telecase-management, telementoring and teleconsultation. Traditional and network meta-analysis were performed to estimate the relative treatment effects. A total of 107 studies involving 20,501 participants were included. Over a median of 6 months follow-up, telemedicine reduced haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) by a mean of 0.43% (95% CI: −0.64% to −0.21%). Network meta-analysis showed that all telemedicine strategies were effective in reducing HbA1c significantly compared to usual care except for telecase-management and telementoring, with mean difference ranging from 0.37% and 0.71%. Ranking indicated that teleconsultation was the most effective telemedicine strategy, followed by telecase-management plus telemonitoring, and finally teleeducation plus telecase-management. The review indicates that most telemedicine strategies can be useful, either as an adjunct or to replace usual care, leading to clinically meaningful reduction in HbA1c.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41598-017-12987-z

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Previous research has compared the effectiveness of 5 strategies for T2DM management, but it has primarily focused on telemedicine within DHIs and compared several independent strategies, without providing a systematic summary of the strategies used in DHIs.

    “Although previous research has compared the effectiveness of 5 strategies for T2DM management, it has primarily focused on telemedicine within DHIs and compared several independent strategies, without providing a systematic summary of the strategies used in DHIs [37].”

    From Assessing the Effectiveness of Digital Health Behavior Strategies on Type 2 Diabetes Management: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis (2025) · cites this paper as [37]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • There is currently a lack of categorization and summarization of the strategies used in DHIs for T2DM.

    “However, there is currently a lack of categorization and summarization of the strategies used in DHIs for T2DM.”

    From Assessing the Effectiveness of Digital Health Behavior Strategies on Type 2 Diabetes Management: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis (2025) · cites this paper as [37]

    The Introduction says previous diabetes telemedicine reviews focused on specific interventions, supporting a lack of comprehensive synthesis before this review. But the Methods provide a taxonomy of strategies, and the paper reviews them comprehensively; it does not support an ongoing lack of categorization and summarization across DHIs for T2DM. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Two reviews found that no single virtual care strategy was superior for reducing HbA1c.

    “Two reviews compared different virtual care strategies and found that no single strategy was superior for reducing HbA1c [20, 48].”
  • All three reviews of teleconsultation interventions versus usual care reported significant effects on lowering HbA1c levels.

    “Of the 3 reviews that analysed the effect of teleconsultation interventions vs usual care, all reported significant effects on lowering HbA1c levels [20, 21, 29].”
  • People with lower socioeconomic status have a higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes, worse diabetes control, and more diabetes-related complications.

    “Those persons with lower socioeconomic status have a higher risk for developing T2D, worse DM control, and more DM-related complications.1661–1663”

    From American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guideline: Developing a Diabetes Mellitus Comprehensive Care Plan-2022 Update. (2022) · cites this paper as [1663]

    The Introduction says that most people with diabetes live in low- and middle-income countries, but it does not compare diabetes risk by individuals’ socioeconomic status. The Methods and Discussion address glycaemic control and telemedicine outcomes, not whether lower socioeconomic status is associated with worse control or more complications. Searches for socioeconomic disadvantage and those three outcomes found no passage establishing the claim. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [11]Liang, X. H., et al. Effect of mobile phone intervention for diabetes self-management support on glycemic control: A meta-analysis. Cardiology. Conference: International Heart Forum Beijing China. Conference Start117 (2010).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lee, S. W. H., Chan, C. K. Y., Chua, S. S., & Chaiyakunapruk, N.
Affiliations
  • Monash University Malaysia (MY)
  • Australian Catholic University (AU)
  • University of Malaya (MY)
Corresponding author
  • Lee, Shaun Wen Huey
  • Chaiyakunapruk, Nathorn
Venue
Scientific Reports
Published
2017-10-04
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
12680-12680
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2757460696
Cited by
200
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 52 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 15
FWCI
1.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Monash University Research Portal (Monash University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Bank (Australian Catholic University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Kementerian Sains, Teknologi dan Inovasi
  • Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
Keywords
telemedicine, type 2 diabetes, glycemic control, HbA1c, remote patient monitoring, teleconsultation, distance education, telementoring, diabetes management
MeSH terms
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Telemedicine, Publication Bias

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review