Cited by 211Telemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationDiabetes Management and EducationDiabetes Management and Research

A systematic review of telemedicine interventions to support blood glucose self‐monitoring in diabetes

Farmer, A., Gibson, O. J., Tarassenko, L., Neil, A.·2005·Diabetic Medicine

Abstract

Aims To evaluate evidence for feasibility, acceptability and cost‐effectiveness of diabetes telemedicine applications. Methods medline,embase,psychinfo,cinahl, Cochrane, and inspec were searched using the terms diabetes and telemedicine for clinical studies using electronic transfer of blood glucose results in people with diabetes. The technology used, trial design and clinical outcome measures used were extracted for trials and prospective cohort studies. Randomized controlled trials with HbA 1c as an outcome were pooled using standard meta‐analytical methods. Results We identified 539 papers among which 32 papers described 10 prospective cohort studies, 12 parallel group randomized controlled trials (RCT), three crossover trials, and one non‐parallel group trial. Only two studies described full details of randomization, blinding of outcomes and dropouts and withdrawals. Electronic transfer of glucose results appears feasible in a clinical setting. Only two of the RCTs included more than 100 patients, and only three extended to 1 year. Only one study was designed to show that telemedicine interventions might replace clinic interventions without deterioration in HbA 1c. Results pooled from the nine RCTs with reported data did not provide evidence that the interventions were effective in reducing HbA 1c(−0.1%, 95% CI −0.4% to 0.04%). Conclusions Telemedicine solutions for diabetes care are feasible and acceptable, but evidence for their effectiveness in improving HbA 1c or reducing costs while maintaining HbA 1c levels, or improving other aspects of diabetes management is not strong. Further research should seek to understand how telemedicine might enhance educational and self‐management interventions and RCTs are required to examine cost‐effectiveness.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2005.01627.x

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Farmer, A., Gibson, O. J., Tarassenko, L., & Neil, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Churchill Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
Farmer, A.
Venue
Diabetic Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-09-13
Volume
22
Issue
10
Pages
1372-1378
ISSN
  • 0742-3071 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-5491
OpenAlex
W2155908428
Cited by
211
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 15
FWCI
1.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Diabetic Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Vodafone Foundation
  • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
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, diabetes mellitus, self-monitoring of blood glucose, HbA1c, glycemic control, feasibility, acceptability, cost-effectiveness, remote glucose monitoring, diabetes self-management
MeSH terms
Clinical Trials as Topic, Diabetes Mellitus, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Research Design, Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring, Cohort Studies, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Telemedicine

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