CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 0Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsDiabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes Management and Education

Effectiveness of Wearable Devices for Diabetes Management: An Overview of Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses

Open access
Talaiti, Muxiarepu, Liao, Xiaoqin, Abulimiti, Nuerguli, Zeng, Meihua, Wang, Yangyang·2026·Journal of Diabetes Research
DOI 10.1155/jdr/1464982PMC PMC13066504
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective: Wearable devices play an important role in managing diabetic patients, and patient demand for them is also on the rise. This overview systematically summarizes and appraises the current evidence on wearable device–based interventions for diabetic patients. Methods: Systematic reviews/meta‐analyses on wearable device interventions for diabetic patients were searched in 10 databases from inception to February 21, 2025. Two researchers independently screened and extracted the data. Methodological quality was assessed using the AMSTAR‐2 tool, report quality via the PRISMA 2020 statement, and evidence quality through the GRADE approach. Results: Thirty‐one studies were included. PRISMA 2020 reporting quality scores ranged from 20 to 26.5 points. Regarding AMSTAR‐2 methodological quality, 25.8% (8/31) were rated high, 38.7% (12/31) low, and 35.5% (11/31) very low. GRADE assessed 97 bodies of evidence (four outcome categories, 27 specific indicators), with only 1 (1.03%) rated as high quality. Wearable devices for diabetes management primarily fall into four categories: blood glucose monitoring, therapeutic interventions, exercise interventions, and comprehensive management systems. Blood glucose monitoring devices were the most widely used and were associated with significant increases in time in range (TIR) and reductions in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c). Among therapeutic devices, specialized footwear reduced the risk of diabetic foot ulcers, whereas exercise interventions increased daily step counts. Conclusion: Wearable devices may benefit glycemic control, exercise management, and foot ulcer prevention in diabetic patients, but evidence for preventing diabetic ketoacidosis and improving psychological outcomes remains limited. These findings should be interpreted cautiously due to the generally low quality of existing evidence. High‐quality, long‐term studies are needed.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This overview of 31 systematic reviews/meta-analyses found that wearable devices may improve glycemic control, exercise, and foot ulcer prevention in diabetes, but the evidence base is mostly low or very low quality. The authors call for high-quality, long-term studies with standardized outcomes.

Key findings

  • The overview included 31 SRs/MAs published 2008–2024; 22 (71.0%) appeared after 2019. Included reviews contained 5–26 RCTs, sample sizes of 335–2879 participants, and follow-up from 3 days to 2 years.
  • Quality was generally poor. PRISMA 2020 scores ranged from 20 to 26.5. For AMSTAR-2, the abstract reports 25.8% (8/31) high, 38.7% (12/31) low, and 35.5% (11/31) very low, while the results section reports 6 high (19.4%), 6 low (19.4%), and 19 very low (61.2%). GRADE assessed 97 evidence bodies: 1 (1.03%) high, 19 (19.59%) moderate, 55 (56.7%) low, and 22 (22.68%) very low.
  • CGM versus SMBG was associated with improved time in range (MD = 5.93, 95% CI [4.42, 7.44], p < 0.01, I² = 0%) and reduced HbA1c (MD = −0.27, 95% CI [−0.35, −0.20], p < 0.01, I² = 69%). Subgroup analyses showed significant TIR and HbA1c improvements in both T1D and T2D, with no significant between-subgroup difference (p > 0.05).
  • Therapeutic footwear reduced diabetic foot ulcer incidence (RR = 0.49, 95% CI [0.28, 0.84]), and home foot-temperature monitoring reduced ulcer risk (OR = 0.51, 95% CI [0.31, 0.84]). Daily step counts increased in three reviews (MD = 1822, 2131.61, and 1583 steps, respectively). DKA prevention showed no statistically significant differences.

Methods

  • Overview of systematic reviews/meta-analyses; searched 10 databases from inception to February 21, 2025, with PROSPERO registration CRD42025646643. Eligible reviews included nonpregnant diabetes patients, wearable device interventions, conventional/placebo or device comparisons, and RCT-based SRs/MAs.
  • Two researchers independently screened and extracted data, with disagreements resolved by a third researcher. Methodological quality was assessed with AMSTAR-2, reporting quality with PRISMA 2020, and evidence certainty with GRADE.
  • Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted for TIR and HbA1c across included reviews.

Limitations

  • The paper states that only Chinese and English literature were included, introducing potential language bias; included studies used different assessment tools for some outcomes and some did not report the tools used; and the overview assessed patient satisfaction/psychological outcomes without evaluating clinical healthcare providers’ experiences or satisfaction.
  • Evident from the text: the abstract and results section report inconsistent AMSTAR-2 quality distributions for the same 31 reviews. Several pooled analyses had substantial heterogeneity (e.g., HbA1c I² = 69%; some TIR analyses I² > 70%), and most GRADE evidence was low or very low.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1155/jdr/1464982

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

27 of 57 cited sources checked · 9 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Findingown data

    Protocol and registration information was reported in only three included studies.

    “Particularly, the protocol and registration information were reported in only three studies [37, 41, 42] and the data accessibility was inadequately reported, with only two studies specifying data retrieval pathways [25, 38].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [37] Fang Z., Liu M., Tao J., Li C., Zou F., and Zhang W., Efficacy and Safety of Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery Versus Sensor-Augmented Pump in the Treatment of Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized-Controlled Trials, Journal of Endocrinological Investigation. (2022) 45, no. 3, 471– 481, 10.1007/s40618-021-01674-6, 34535888. 34535888 source
    • cites [41] Alahakoon C., Fernando M., Galappaththy C., Matthews E. O., Lazzarini P., Moxon J. V., and Golledge J., Meta-Analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials Reporting the Effect of Home Foot Temperature Monitoring, Patient Education or Offloading Footwear on the Incidence of Diabetes-Related Foot Ulcers, Diabetic Medicine. (2020) 37, no. 8, 1266– 1279, 10.1111/dme.14323, 32426872. 32426872 source
    • cites [42] Qiu S., Cai X., Chen X., Yang B., and Sun Z., Step Counter Use in Type 2 Diabetes: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials, BMC Medicine. (2014) 12, no. 12, 10.1186/1741-7015-12-36, 2-s2.0-84897550999, 24571580. PMC4016223 24571580 source
  • Premisecitation

    Therapeutic offloading footwear significantly reduced foot ulcer risk.

    “Two reviews [40, 41] demonstrated that therapeutic offloading footwear and home foot‐temperature monitoring significantly reduced foot ulcer risk, with evidence quality rated as low in both cases.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [40] Luo B., Cai Y., Chen D., Wang C., Huang H., Chen L., Gao Y., and Ran X., Effects of Special Therapeutic Footwear on the Prevention of Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials, Journal Diabetes Research. (2022) 2022, no. 2022, 9742665, 10.1155/2022/9742665, 36204487. PMC9530919 36204487 source
    • cites [41] Alahakoon C., Fernando M., Galappaththy C., Matthews E. O., Lazzarini P., Moxon J. V., and Golledge J., Meta-Analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials Reporting the Effect of Home Foot Temperature Monitoring, Patient Education or Offloading Footwear on the Incidence of Diabetes-Related Foot Ulcers, Diabetic Medicine. (2020) 37, no. 8, 1266– 1279, 10.1111/dme.14323, 32426872. 32426872 source
  • Premisecitation

    Wearable device-related interventions had no significant effect on body weight (low-quality evidence).

    “Two reviews [43, 45] indicated that wearable device‐related interventions improved BMI (moderate‐quality evidence) but had no significant effect on body weight (low‐quality evidence).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [43] de Oliveira V. L. P., de Paula T. P., and Viana L. V., Pedometer- and Accelerometer- Based Physical Activity Interventions in Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, Nutrition, Metabolism, and Cardiovascular Diseases. (2024) 34, no. 3, 548– 558, 10.1016/j.numecd.2023.11.017, 38220510. 38220510 source
    • cites [45] Chua R. E. C., Lau Y., Ang W. W., Boey A. A. Y. F., and Lau S. T., Effectiveness of Wearable Technology-Based Physical Activity Interventions for Adults With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Regression, Journal of Diabetes. (2024) 16, no. 10, e70002, 10.1111/1753-0407.70002, 39364789. 39364789 PMC11450597 source

      The Results (BP, BMI, and serum lipid profile; page unavailable) report no significant difference in mean BMI between intervention and control groups, but do not report a body-weight result. The Results (Certainty of evidence and publication bias; page unavailable) rate the evidence for all outcomes as very low, not low. (LLM, conf=0.82)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation

    Closed-loop systems demonstrate greater improvement in TIR levels compared with usual care.

    “and that closed‐loop systems demonstrate greater improvement in TIR levels compared with usual care [36].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [36] Jiao X., Shen Y., and Chen Y., Better TIR, HbA1c, and Less Hypoglycemia in Closed-Loop Insulin System in Patients With Type 1 Diabetes: A Meta-Analysis, BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care. (2022) 10, no. 2, e002633, 10.1136/bmjdrc-2021-002633, 35450868. PMC9024214 35450868 source
  • Findingown data

    Data accessibility was inadequately reported, with only two studies specifying data retrieval pathways.

    “Particularly, the protocol and registration information were reported in only three studies [37, 41, 42] and the data accessibility was inadequately reported, with only two studies specifying data retrieval pathways [25, 38].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [25] Ferreira R. O. M., Trevisan T., Pasqualotto E., Chavez M. P., Marques B. F., Lamounier R. N., and van de Sande-Lee S., Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems in Noninsulin-Treated People With Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials, Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics. (2024) 26, no. 4, 252– 262, 10.1089/dia.2023.0390, 38090767. 38090767 source
    • cites [38] Zeng B., Gao L., Yang Q., Jia H., and Sun F., Automated Insulin Delivery Systems in Children and Adolescents With Type 1 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Outpatient Randomized Controlled Trials, Diabetes Care. (2023) 46, no. 12, 2300– 2307, 10.2337/dc23-0504, 38011519. 38011519 PMC10698220 source
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 20
  • May combine two claims. 32
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 3

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductcitation

    Methodological quality of included reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool.

    “Methodological quality was assessed using the AMSTAR‐2 tool”
    • Also stated in: § 2.6. Assessment of Methodological Quality · plain
      “Methodological quality was evaluated using the AMSTAR 2 tool [12, 13], which comprises 16 items including seven critical domains, classifying reviews into four quality levels (high, moderate, low, and critically low).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [12] Tao H., Yang L. T., Ping A., Quan L. L., Yang X., Zhang Y. G., Kang D. Y., Li J., Du L., Sun X., and Chen J., Interpretation of AMSTAR 2: A Critical Appraisal Tool for Systematic Reviews that Include Randomized or Non-Randomized Studies of Healthcare Interventions, Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine. (2018) 18, no. 1, 101– 108, 10.7507/1672-2531.201711005, 2-s2.0-85050767801.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [13] Shea B. J., Reeves B. C., Wells G., Thuku M., Hamel C., Moran J., Moher D., Tugwell P., and Welch V., AMSTAR 2: A Critical Appraisal Tool for Systematic Reviews that Include Randomised or Non-Randomised Studies of Healthcare Interventions, or Both, BMJ. (2017) 358, j4008, 10.1136/bmj.j4008, 2-s2.0-85029833812. 28935701 PMC5833365 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    Reporting quality of included reviews was assessed using the PRISMA 2020 statement.

    “report quality via the PRISMA 2020 statement”
    • Also stated in: § 2.6. Assessment of Methodological Quality · plain
      “The reporting quality of each review was assessed using the PRISMA 2020 statement [11], which includes 27 items.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [11] Page M. J., McKenzie J. E., Bossuyt P. M., Boutron I., Hoffmann T. C., Mulrow C. D., Shamseer L., Tetzlaff J. M., Akl E. A., Brennan S. E., Chou R., Glanville J., Grimshaw J. M., Hróbjartsson A., Lalu M. M., Li T., Loder E. W., Mayo-Wilson E., McDonald S., McGuinness L., Stewart L. A., Thomas J., Tricco A. C., Welch V. A., Whiting P., and Moher D., The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews, BMJ. (2021) 372, no. 372, n71, 10.1136/bmj.n71, 33782057. 33782057 PMC8005924 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    CGM and closed-loop insulin delivery systems have been shown to significantly improve TIR, reduce HbA1c levels, and decrease TBR/TAR, thereby enhancing glycemic stability in both Type 1 and T2D patients.

    “Regarding glycemic control, CGM and closed‐loop insulin delivery systems (AID, CLS, and artificial pancreas) have been shown to significantly improve TIR, reduce HbA1c levels, and decrease TBR/time above range (TAR), thereby enhancing glycemic stability in both Type 1 and T2D patients [24, 25, 35, 36].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [24] Wang Y. D., Fu G. F., Li X., Han J. X., Chen J. F., and Wei X. H., Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Different Duration of Continuous Blood Glucose Monitoring on Glycemic Control in Diabetic Patients, Chinese Journal of Nursing. (2022) 57, no. 15, 1839– 1846, 10.3761/j.issn.0254-1769.2022.15.007. source

      The Results (section 3.3; page unavailable) report significantly lower HbA1c with CGM than with self-monitoring, and section 3.2 identifies the participants as having type 1 diabetes. The paper does not report effects on TIR, TBR or TAR, assess closed-loop insulin delivery, or study patients with type 2 diabetes; its other reported benefit is fewer severe hypoglycemic events. (LLM, conf=0.90)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [25] Ferreira R. O. M., Trevisan T., Pasqualotto E., Chavez M. P., Marques B. F., Lamounier R. N., and van de Sande-Lee S., Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems in Noninsulin-Treated People With Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials, Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics. (2024) 26, no. 4, 252– 262, 10.1089/dia.2023.0390, 38090767. 38090767 source
    • cites [35] Weisman A., Bai J. W., Cardinez M., Kramer C. K., and Perkins B. A., Effect of Artificial Pancreas Systems on Glycaemic Control in Patients With Type 1 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Outpatient Randomised Controlled Trials, The Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology. (2017) 5, no. 7, 501– 512, 10.1016/S2213-8587(17)30167-5, 2-s2.0-85019942593, 28533136. 28533136 source
    • Rests on an assumption: The included systematic reviews and meta-analyses provide valid estimates of the effects of wearable devices despite their methodological limitations.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Wearable activity trackers significantly increased daily step counts in patients with T2D (p < 0.05), with low evidence certainty.

    “Three reviews evaluated the effect of wearable activity trackers on daily step counts in patients with T2D [42, 43, 45], all reporting statistically significant increases in the intervention group (p < 0.05) but with low evidence certainty.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [42] Qiu S., Cai X., Chen X., Yang B., and Sun Z., Step Counter Use in Type 2 Diabetes: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials, BMC Medicine. (2014) 12, no. 12, 10.1186/1741-7015-12-36, 2-s2.0-84897550999, 24571580. PMC4016223 24571580 source

      The Results > Effect on PA section reports a significant increase of 1,822 steps per day in patients with T2D (95% CI: 751 to 2,894), supporting the step-count finding and statistical significance. The Discussion > Strengths and limitations section notes high heterogeneity and possible bias, but our copy does not assign the finding a low evidence-certainty rating. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [43] de Oliveira V. L. P., de Paula T. P., and Viana L. V., Pedometer- and Accelerometer- Based Physical Activity Interventions in Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, Nutrition, Metabolism, and Cardiovascular Diseases. (2024) 34, no. 3, 548– 558, 10.1016/j.numecd.2023.11.017, 38220510. 38220510 source
    • cites [45] Chua R. E. C., Lau Y., Ang W. W., Boey A. A. Y. F., and Lau S. T., Effectiveness of Wearable Technology-Based Physical Activity Interventions for Adults With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Regression, Journal of Diabetes. (2024) 16, no. 10, e70002, 10.1111/1753-0407.70002, 39364789. 39364789 PMC11450597 source

      The Results (Physical activity) report a significant increase of 1,583 steps per day with wearable-based interventions (p < 0.05). However, the Results (Certainty of evidence and publication bias) rate the evidence for all outcomes as very low under GRADE, rather than low. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Two reviews [23, 34] evaluated the effect of CGM versus SMBG on DKA risk, with no statistically significant differences observed between intervention and control groups.

    “Two reviews [23, 34] evaluated the effect of CGM versus SMBG on DKA risk, with no statistically significant differences observed between intervention and control groups.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [23] Teo E., Hassan N., Tam W., and Koh S., Effectiveness of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Maintaining Glycaemic Control Among People With Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review of Randomised Controlled Trials and Meta-Analysis, Diabetologia. (2022) 65, no. 4, 604– 619, 10.1007/s00125-021-05648-4, 35141761. 35141761 source
    • cites [34] Dicembrini I., Cosentino C., Monami M., Mannucci E., and Pala L., Effects of Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Type 1 Diabetes: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials, Acta Diabetologica. (2021) 58, no. 4, 401– 410, 10.1007/s00592-020-01589-3, 32789691. 32789691 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    The glycemic effects of CGM and closed-loop systems are primarily attributable to the real-time glucose feedback of CGM and the automated insulin adjustments of closed-loop systems.

    “These effects are primarily attributable to the real‐time glucose feedback of CGM and the automated insulin adjustments of closed‐loop systems [46].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [46] Daly A. B., Boughton C. K., Nwokolo M., Hartnell S., Wilinska M. E., Cezar A., Evans M. L., and Hovorka R., Fully Automated Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: An Open-Label, Single-Center, Randomized Crossover Trial, Nature Medicine. (2023) 29, no. 1, 203– 208, 10.1038/s41591-022-02144-z, 36631592. PMC9873557 36631592 source

      The Methods describe a system that uses continuous glucose readings to adjust insulin delivery automatically, and the Results report improved glycemic control during closed-loop therapy. The Discussion says some benefit may be attributable to CGM alone. It does not establish that the effects are primarily attributable to these mechanisms or isolate the effect of real-time CGM feedback. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Pedometers and smart wristbands effectively increase daily step counts and physical activity levels, contributing to improvements in lipid profiles and blood pressure.

    “In exercise management, pedometers and smart wristbands effectively increase daily step counts and physical activity levels, contributing to improvements in lipid profiles and blood pressure [42–45].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 4 sources checked
    • cites [42] Qiu S., Cai X., Chen X., Yang B., and Sun Z., Step Counter Use in Type 2 Diabetes: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials, BMC Medicine. (2014) 12, no. 12, 10.1186/1741-7015-12-36, 2-s2.0-84897550999, 24571580. PMC4016223 24571580 source

      The Results (Effect on PA; page unavailable) report that step-counter use increased physical activity by 1,822 steps per day in people with type 2 diabetes. The Background mentions evidence of improved blood pressure and lipid profiles, but the Discussion (Strengths and limitations; page unavailable) says this meta-analysis did not assess those outcomes. The cited analysis also does not establish effectiveness for smart wristbands specifically. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [43] de Oliveira V. L. P., de Paula T. P., and Viana L. V., Pedometer- and Accelerometer- Based Physical Activity Interventions in Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, Nutrition, Metabolism, and Cardiovascular Diseases. (2024) 34, no. 3, 548– 558, 10.1016/j.numecd.2023.11.017, 38220510. 38220510 source
    • cites [44] Zhang M., Huang P., Li C. Y., Peng Y. X., Wu H. M., and He J. J., Effect of Wearable Devices Combined With Exercise Management on Glycolipid Metabolism in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus: A Meta-Analysis, Chinese Journal of Diabetes Mellitus. (2023) 15, no. 12, 1261– 1268, 10.3760/cma.j.cn115791-20230914-00128.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [45] Chua R. E. C., Lau Y., Ang W. W., Boey A. A. Y. F., and Lau S. T., Effectiveness of Wearable Technology-Based Physical Activity Interventions for Adults With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Regression, Journal of Diabetes. (2024) 16, no. 10, e70002, 10.1111/1753-0407.70002, 39364789. 39364789 PMC11450597 source

      The Results (Physical activity; page not supplied) report a significant increase of 1,583 steps per day, but not a significant increase in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity. The Discussion (Blood pressure) reports reduced systolic, but not diastolic, blood pressure. Contrary to the lipid-profile portion of the claim, the Discussion (Serum lipid profile) reports no significant lipid differences. (LLM, conf=0.90)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Substantial heterogeneity, inadequate sample sizes, and publication bias were primary reasons for downgrading evidence.

    “primarily due to: ? substantial heterogeneity [24, 38], potentially arising from differences in device brands and intervention durations (1–12 months); ? inadequate sample sizes, with most studies including fewer than 400 participants [15, 25, 30]; ? publication bias, as some systematic reviews were downgraded due to limited literature inclusion or asymmetric funnel plots [27, 30, 31].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [24] Wang Y. D., Fu G. F., Li X., Han J. X., Chen J. F., and Wei X. H., Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Different Duration of Continuous Blood Glucose Monitoring on Glycemic Control in Diabetic Patients, Chinese Journal of Nursing. (2022) 57, no. 15, 1839– 1846, 10.3761/j.issn.0254-1769.2022.15.007. source

      The Results (§3.3) report substantial heterogeneity for HbA1c (I² = 73%), supporting that part of the claim. But the Discussion (§4) says its source could not be identified, rather than attributing it to device brands or intervention durations. The paper does not identify inadequate sample sizes as a reason for downgrading evidence; its Results (§3.3) report symmetric funnel plots and no publication bias. (LLM, conf=0.87)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [38] Zeng B., Gao L., Yang Q., Jia H., and Sun F., Automated Insulin Delivery Systems in Children and Adolescents With Type 1 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Outpatient Randomized Controlled Trials, Diabetes Care. (2023) 46, no. 12, 2300– 2307, 10.2337/dc23-0504, 38011519. 38011519 PMC10698220 source

      The Discussion (page unavailable) reports high heterogeneity in most analyses and small sample sizes in most trials, which reduced precision. It does not identify these as primary reasons for downgrading evidence or substantiate the stated sample-size threshold. The Results > Primary Outcome (page unavailable) report no evidence of publication bias on the Egger test or funnel plot, contrary to that part of the claim. (LLM, conf=0.87)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [15] Chetty V. T., Almulla A., Odueyungbo A., and Thabane L., The Effect of Continuous Subcutaneous Glucose Monitoring (CGMS) Versus Intermittent Whole Blood Finger-Stick Glucose Monitoring (SBGM) on Hemoglobin A1c (HBA1c) Levels in Type I Diabetic Patients: A Systematic Review, Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice. (2008) 81, no. 1, 79– 87, 10.1016/j.diabres.2008.02.014, 2-s2.0-44649124731, 18417243. 18417243 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    RT-CGM outperforms isCGM in reducing HbA1c and minimizing hypoglycemic episodes.

    “as RT‐CGM outperforms isCGM in reducing HbA1c and minimizing hypoglycemic episodes [30]”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [30] Zhou Y., Sardana D., Kuroko S., Haszard J. J., de Block M. I., Weng J., Jefferies C., and Wheeler B. J., Comparing the Glycaemic Outcomes Between Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring (Rt-CGM) and Intermittently Scanned Continuous Glucose Monitoring (isCGM) Among Adults and Children With Type 1 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials, Diabetic Medicine. (2024) 41, no. 3, e15280, 10.1111/dme.15280, 38197238. 38197238 source

      The Results summary (section 1) reports less time below the hypoglycaemia threshold with rt-CGM than with isCGM, but no difference in HbA1c. The Primary outcomes section (3.3) confirms that the pooled HbA1c difference was not statistically significant. The hypoglycaemia measure was time below range, not a count of episodes. (LLM, conf=0.90)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Exercise interventions enhance insulin sensitivity.

    “This observation aligns with established evidence that exercise interventions enhance insulin sensitivity [47]”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [47] Fioranzato M., Comoretto R. I., Lanera C., Pressato L., Palmisano G., Barbacane L., and Gregori D., Improving Healthy Aging by Monitoring Patients′ Lifestyle Through a Wearable Device: Results of a Feasibility Study, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. (2021) 18, no. 18, 10.3390/ijerph18189806, 34574738. PMC8469467 34574738 source

      The Study Design section describes monitoring physical activity with a wearable device, and the Discussion recommends maintaining physical activity for people with diabetes. Neither reports an exercise intervention or states that exercise improves insulin sensitivity. Searches for “insulin sensitivity” and exercise-related improvements in insulin resistance or glucose metabolism found no supporting passage. (LLM, conf=0.75)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    For T2D patients not on insulin therapy, isCGM offers convenience while meeting glycemic monitoring needs, with potential long-term cost benefits.

    “For T2D patients not on insulin therapy, isCGM offers convenience while meeting glycemic monitoring needs [25], with potential long‐term cost benefits [48].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [25] Ferreira R. O. M., Trevisan T., Pasqualotto E., Chavez M. P., Marques B. F., Lamounier R. N., and van de Sande-Lee S., Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems in Noninsulin-Treated People With Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials, Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics. (2024) 26, no. 4, 252– 262, 10.1089/dia.2023.0390, 38090767. 38090767 source
    • cites [48] Ajjan R., Bilir S. P., Hellmund R., and Souto D., Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Flash Glucose Monitoring System for People With Type 2 Diabetes Receiving Intensive Insulin Treatment, Diabetes Therapy. (2022) 13, no. 11-12, 1933– 1945, 10.1007/s13300-022-01325-w, 36287387. 36287387 PMC9607728 source

      The Conclusions state that long-term flash glucose monitoring is cost-effective and that remote monitoring may yield cost savings. But the analysis concerns people with T2D receiving intensive insulin therapy; it does not establish potential long-term cost benefits for the non-insulin-treated patients named in the citing sentence. The convenience and monitoring-needs clause is attached to a different citation. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Therapeutic footwear and foot temperature monitoring devices significantly reduce the incidence of diabetic foot ulcers.

    “Regarding complication prevention, therapeutic footwear and foot temperature monitoring devices have been shown to significantly reduce the incidence of diabetic foot ulcers [40, 41]”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [40] Luo B., Cai Y., Chen D., Wang C., Huang H., Chen L., Gao Y., and Ran X., Effects of Special Therapeutic Footwear on the Prevention of Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials, Journal Diabetes Research. (2022) 2022, no. 2022, 9742665, 10.1155/2022/9742665, 36204487. PMC9530919 36204487 source

      The Results (§3.4; page not supplied) report that special therapeutic footwear significantly reduced diabetic foot ulceration compared with conventional footwear. The cited paper does not establish the claim about foot temperature monitoring devices, so it supports only the footwear part of the sentence. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [41] Alahakoon C., Fernando M., Galappaththy C., Matthews E. O., Lazzarini P., Moxon J. V., and Golledge J., Meta-Analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials Reporting the Effect of Home Foot Temperature Monitoring, Patient Education or Offloading Footwear on the Incidence of Diabetes-Related Foot Ulcers, Diabetic Medicine. (2020) 37, no. 8, 1266– 1279, 10.1111/dme.14323, 32426872. 32426872 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Among high-risk populations for diabetic foot complications, therapeutic footwear and foot temperature monitoring devices reduce ulcer risk by 51% and 49%, respectively.

    “Among high‐risk populations for diabetic foot complications, therapeutic footwear and foot temperature monitoring devices reduce ulcer risk by 51% and 49%, respectively [40, 41], warranting broader adoption.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [40] Luo B., Cai Y., Chen D., Wang C., Huang H., Chen L., Gao Y., and Ran X., Effects of Special Therapeutic Footwear on the Prevention of Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials, Journal Diabetes Research. (2022) 2022, no. 2022, 9742665, 10.1155/2022/9742665, 36204487. PMC9530919 36204487 source
    • cites [41] Alahakoon C., Fernando M., Galappaththy C., Matthews E. O., Lazzarini P., Moxon J. V., and Golledge J., Meta-Analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials Reporting the Effect of Home Foot Temperature Monitoring, Patient Education or Offloading Footwear on the Incidence of Diabetes-Related Foot Ulcers, Diabetic Medicine. (2020) 37, no. 8, 1266– 1279, 10.1111/dme.14323, 32426872. 32426872 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingnone given

    Wearable devices for diabetes management primarily fall into four categories: blood glucose monitoring, therapeutic interventions, exercise interventions, and comprehensive management systems.

    “Wearable devices for diabetes management primarily fall into four categories: blood glucose monitoring, therapeutic interventions, exercise interventions, and comprehensive management systems.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    AMSTAR-2 methodological quality of the included reviews was 25.8% (8/31) high, 38.7% (12/31) low, and 35.5% (11/31) very low.

    “Regarding AMSTAR‐2 methodological quality, 25.8% (8/31) were rated high, 38.7% (12/31) low, and 35.5% (11/31) very low.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    AMSTAR-2 appraisal classified six reviews as high quality (19.4%), six as low quality (19.4%), and 19 as very low quality (61.2%).

    “Out of the articles evaluated, six were classified as high quality (19.4%), six as low quality (19.4%), and 19 as very low quality (61.2%), resulting in an overall low‐quality assessment.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    The overview included 31 systematic reviews/meta-analyses on wearable device interventions for diabetic patients.

    “Finally, 31 studies were discussed.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Twelve reviews conducted GRADE evidence assessments.

    “Twelve reviews conducted GRADE evidence assessments.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Sample sizes in the reviews ranged from 335 to 2879 participants.

    “All SRs/MAs incorporated RCT evidence, with the number of included trials ranging from 5 to 26 and sample sizes ranging from 335 to 2879 participants, the follow‐up time ranging from 3 days to 2 years.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Nine reviews reported TBR, with seven showing reductions in the intervention group.

    “Nine reviews reported TBR, with seven showing reductions in the intervention group.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the overview's quantitative analysis, CGM was associated with a statistically significant improvement in HbA1c compared with SMBG (MD = −0.27, 95% CI [−0.35, −0.20], p < 0.01), with substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 69%).

    “Quantitative analysis using a random‐effects model demonstrated that CGM was associated with a statistically significant improvement in HbA1c compared with SMBG (MD = −0.27, 95% CI [−0.35, −0.20], p < 0.01), with substantial heterogeneity observed among studies (I 2 = 69%).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Twenty-two reviews assessed the impact of wearable devices on HbA1c levels, with 18 reporting significant reductions in the intervention group (p < 0.05).

    “Twenty‐two reviews assessed the impact of wearable devices on HbA1c levels, with 18 reporting significant reductions in the intervention group (p < 0.05).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    The number of included trials in the reviews ranged from 5 to 26.

    “All SRs/MAs incorporated RCT evidence, with the number of included trials ranging from 5 to 26 and sample sizes ranging from 335 to 2879 participants, the follow‐up time ranging from 3 days to 2 years.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    The included reviews were all published between 2008 and 2024.

    “These reviews were all published between 2008 and 2024, 29 of which were in English, and the remaining two were in Chinese, with 22 (71.0%) published after 2019, indicating a surge in research interest in recent years.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Only one review [25] had moderate-level evidence for TAR, with the remainder being low or very low quality.

    “Only one [25] had moderate‐level evidence for TAR, with the remainder being low or very low quality.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [25] Ferreira R. O. M., Trevisan T., Pasqualotto E., Chavez M. P., Marques B. F., Lamounier R. N., and van de Sande-Lee S., Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems in Noninsulin-Treated People With Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials, Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics. (2024) 26, no. 4, 252– 262, 10.1089/dia.2023.0390, 38090767. 38090767 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    The evidence on treatment satisfaction is of low or very low quality, lacking replication.

    “The evidence is of low or very low quality, lacking replication.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Follow-up time in the reviews ranged from 3 days to 2 years.

    “All SRs/MAs incorporated RCT evidence, with the number of included trials ranging from 5 to 26 and sample sizes ranging from 335 to 2879 participants, the follow‐up time ranging from 3 days to 2 years.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Seven reviews reported TAR, with six showing TAR reduction in the intervention group.

    “Seven reviews reported TAR, with six showing TAR reduction in the intervention group.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The wearable devices included in the overview were categorized into four types, with blood glucose monitoring applications being the most prevalent (21/31, 67.7%).

    “The wearable devices included in the study were categorized into four types, with blood glucose monitoring applications being the most prevalent (21/31, 67.7%)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the overview's quantitative analysis, CGM was associated with a statistically significant improvement in TIR compared with SMBG (MD = 5.93, 95% CI [4.42, 7.44], p < 0.01), without significant heterogeneity (I2 = 0%).

    “Quantitative analysis using a random‐effects model demonstrated that CGM was associated with a statistically significant improvement in TIR compared with SMBG (MD = 5.93, 95% CI [4.42, 7.44], p < 0.01), without significant heterogeneity (I 2 = 0%).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Twelve reviews evaluated the effect of wearable devices on time in range (TIR), and 10 showed significantly higher TIR in the intervention group (p < 0.05).

    “Twelve reviews evaluated the effect of wearable devices on time in range (TIR), with 10 showing significantly higher TIR in the intervention group (p < 0.05).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    22 (71.0%) of the included reviews were published after 2019.

    “These reviews were all published between 2008 and 2024, 29 of which were in English, and the remaining two were in Chinese, with 22 (71.0%) published after 2019, indicating a surge in research interest in recent years.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    27 reviews used the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool, two used the Jadad scale, one used the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tools, and one adopted the Maastricht-Amsterdam Consensus List.

    “Regarding RCT quality assessment, 27 reviews used the Cochrane risk‐of‐bias tool, two reviews used the Jadad scale, one review used the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tools, and one review adopted the Maastricht–Amsterdam Consensus List.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Study populations covered Type 1 diabetes (12 reviews), Type 2 diabetes (13 reviews), and mixed cohorts (6 reviews).

    “The study populations covered Type 1 diabetes (12 reviews), Type 2 diabetes (T2D, 13 reviews), and mixed cohorts including both T1D and T2D (6 reviews).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    Evidence for DKA prevention and quality-of-life outcomes remains limited.

    “However, evidence for DKA prevention and quality‐of‐life outcomes remains limited”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The included studies generally exhibit methodological weaknesses and low-quality evidence.

    “and the included studies generally exhibit methodological weaknesses and low‐quality evidence.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    TIR had a standardized definition (3.9-10 mmol/L), but monitoring frequency was not consistently reported across studies.

    “Although TIR had a standardized definition (3.9–10 mmol/L), monitoring frequency was not consistently reported across studies.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    The included studies generally exhibited low methodological quality and low certainty of evidence, limiting the generalizability of findings.

    “The included studies generally exhibited low methodological quality and low certainty of evidence, limiting the generalizability of findings.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductcitation

    Evidence certainty was appraised using the GRADE approach.

    “evidence quality through the GRADE approach”
    • Also stated in: § 2.6. Assessment of Methodological Quality · plain
      “Evidence certainty was further appraised using the GRADE approach [14] across five domains—risk of bias, inconsistency (I 2), indirectness, imprecision (sample size), and publication bias—resulting in four levels of evidence quality (high, moderate, low, and very low).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [14] Guyatt G. H., Oxman A. D., Kunz R., Woodcock J., Brozek J., Helfand M., Alonso-Coello P., Glasziou P., Jaeschke R., Akl E. A., and Norris S., GRADE Guidelines: 7. Rating the Quality of Evidence-Inconsistency, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. (2011) 64, 1294– 1302, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.03.017, 2-s2.0-80054981259. 21803546 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    Literature screening and data extraction were performed independently by two researchers.

    “The literature screening (MT and MH‐Z) and information extraction (NA and YY‐W) were performed independently by two researchers.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Disagreement between the two researchers was resolved by a third researcher.

    “The disagreement between the two researchers was resolved by a third researcher.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Only outcomes for which meta-analytic effect estimates were available were evaluated; individual RCTs without pooled effects were not independently graded.

    “Only outcomes for which meta‐analytic effect estimates were available were evaluated; individual RCTs without pooled effects were not independently graded.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The research protocol was registered in PROSPERO on February 14, 2025, under registration number CRD42025646643.

    “The research protocol was registered in the International Prospective Systematic Review Registry (PROSPERO) on February 14, 2025, under the Registration Number CRD42025646643.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Two researchers independently assessed the methodological and evidentiary quality of the included SRs/MAs.

    “Two researchers (MT and NA) independently assessed the methodological and evidentiary quality of the included SRs/MAs.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Premisecitation

    Wearable device-based interventions significantly improved triglycerides.

    “One [44] demonstrated significant improvements in triglycerides and high‐density lipoprotein cholesterol”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [44] Zhang M., Huang P., Li C. Y., Peng Y. X., Wu H. M., and He J. J., Effect of Wearable Devices Combined With Exercise Management on Glycolipid Metabolism in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus: A Meta-Analysis, Chinese Journal of Diabetes Mellitus. (2023) 15, no. 12, 1261– 1268, 10.3760/cma.j.cn115791-20230914-00128.

      Not checked in the free run.

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Premisecitation

    Wearable device-based interventions significantly improved HDL-C.

    “One [44] demonstrated significant improvements in triglycerides and high‐density lipoprotein cholesterol”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [44] Zhang M., Huang P., Li C. Y., Peng Y. X., Wu H. M., and He J. J., Effect of Wearable Devices Combined With Exercise Management on Glycolipid Metabolism in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus: A Meta-Analysis, Chinese Journal of Diabetes Mellitus. (2023) 15, no. 12, 1261– 1268, 10.3760/cma.j.cn115791-20230914-00128.

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Activity trackers improve daily physical activity, and foot protection devices reduce the risk of diabetic foot complications.

    “Activity trackers improve daily physical activity, and foot protection devices reduce the risk of diabetic foot complications.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The included systematic reviews and meta-analyses provide valid estimates of the effects of wearable devices despite their methodological limitations.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    This study focused on patient satisfaction and psychological outcomes without assessing the experiences and satisfaction of clinical healthcare providers.

    “Furthermore, this study focused on patient satisfaction and psychological outcomes without assessing the experiences and satisfaction of clinical healthcare providers, who play a key role in monitoring wearable device data.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Wearable devices are beneficial for diabetes management, with CGM showing the strongest evidence for glycemic control.

    “Wearable devices are beneficial for diabetes management, with CGM showing the strongest evidence for glycemic control.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The included systematic reviews and meta-analyses provide valid estimates of the effects of wearable devices despite their methodological limitations.
    • Rests on an assumption: The effects of wearable devices observed in the included reviews can be generalized to the broader population of patients with diabetes.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The included studies used different assessment tools for some outcomes, and some did not report the tools used.

    “The included studies used different assessment tools for some outcomes, and some did not report the tools used.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Only Chinese and English literature were included, introducing potential language bias.

    “First, only Chinese and English literature were included, introducing potential language bias.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
51 of 51

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Wearable devices play an important role in managing diabetic patients.

    “Wearable devices play an important role in managing diabetic patients, and patient demand for them is also on the rise.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Patient demand for wearable devices for diabetes management is on the rise.

    “Wearable devices play an important role in managing diabetic patients, and patient demand for them is also on the rise.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The included systematic reviews and meta-analyses provide valid estimates of the effects of wearable devices despite their methodological limitations.

    “The included studies generally exhibited low methodological quality and low certainty of evidence, limiting the generalizability of findings.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The effects of wearable devices observed in the included reviews can be generalized to the broader population of patients with diabetes.

    “Wearable devices are beneficial for diabetes management, with CGM showing the strongest evidence for glycemic control.”
4 of 4

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • AMSTAR-2 quality ratings differ between the abstract and results

    Major

    The abstract reports 8 high-, 12 low-, and 11 very-low-quality reviews. The results report 6, 6, and 19, respectively, for the same 31 reviews.

  • Footwear review is attributed glucose and exercise results

    Minor

    Table 2 identifies review [40] as an eight-trial review of therapeutic footwear and foot ulcers. Table 3 attributes a 12-trial physical-activity comparison of fasting plasma glucose to that same review.

  • Review [37] has a Table 3 analysis larger than its stated total sample

    Minor

    The CGM-versus-SMBG analysis attributed to review [37] contains 1,007 participants, although Table 2 gives 715 participants for that review overall.

  • Review [45] has more HbA1c trials than its stated total

    Minor

    Table 2 lists 19 trials for review [45], but Table 3 attributes a 20-trial HbA1c analysis to it.

  • Review [34] has a Table 3 analysis larger than its stated total sample

    Minor

    Table 3 lists 2,725 participants in review [34]'s HbA1c analysis, exceeding the 2,252 participants given for the entire review in Table 2.

  • Review [22] has more HbA1c trials than its stated total

    Minor

    The HbA1c analysis attributed to review [22] contains 26 trials, whereas Table 2 lists 22 trials for the review overall.

  • Body-weight evidence is called low but tabulated as very low

    Minor

    The results describe the body-weight finding as low-quality evidence; Table 3 rates the listed body-weight result very low.

  • HbA1c evidence for review [44] is called moderate but tabulated as low

    Minor

    The results name review [44] among those with moderate-level HbA1c evidence, but its HbA1c entry in Table 3 is rated low.

8 of 8

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. 10.3761/j.issn.0254-1769.2025.10.020 · DOI
  2. 10.7507/1672-2531.201711005 · DOI
  3. 10.3761/j.issn.0254-1769.2022.15.007 · DOI
  4. 10.3760/cma.j.cn115791-20230914-00128 · DOI

Cited by

Still being checked.

Authors
Talaiti, M., Liao, X., Abulimiti, N., Zeng, M., & Wang, Y.
Affiliations
Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine (CN)
Corresponding author
Liao, Xiaoqin
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Diabetes Research
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2026-01
Volume
2026
Issue
1
Pages
e1464982-e1464982
ISSN
  • 2314-6745 (ISSN-L)
  • 2314-6753
DOI
10.1155/jdr/1464982
PMC
PMC13066504
OpenAlex
W7153036581
Semantic Scholar
d1ca75ac7a3018137bea08839251be2c9222560c
Cited by
0
References
45
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Diabetes Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
Keywords
wearable devices, diabetes management, blood glucose monitoring, glycemic control, time in range, HbA1c, diabetic foot ulcer prevention, exercise intervention, step count, diabetic ketoacidosis, psychological outcomes, digital health interventions
MeSH terms
Wearable Electronic Devices, Systematic Reviews as Topic, Digital Health, Blood Glucose, Diabetes Mellitus, Humans, Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-09.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-09.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

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