Cited by 58Diabetes Management and EducationTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationMobile Health and mHealth Applications

Impact of Phone Call Intervention on Glycemic Control in Diabetes Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized, Controlled Trials

Open access
Suksomboon, Naeti, Poolsup, Nalinee, Nge, Yuu Lay·2014·PLoS ONE

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Telephone-delivered intervention can provide many supports in diabetes self-management to improve glycemic control. Several trials showed that telephone intervention was positively associated with glycemic outcomes in diabetes. The objective of this meta-analysis was to assess the impact of telephone contact intervention (intervention group) on glycemic control compared with standard clinical care (control group). METHODS: Randomized control studies of telephone intervention in diabetes were searched on Medline (Pubmed), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Web of Science (ISI), and Scopus. Electronic search was done from inception to April 2013. The following MeSH terms were used: diabetes mellitus, randomized control trials and telemedicine, together with keywords including phone intervention, diabetes, and glycemic control. Historical search was also conducted on the references of relevant articles. The quality of the trials was assessed using Maastricht-Amsterdam scale. Treatment effect was estimated with mean difference in the change of hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) from baseline between the intervention and control groups. RESULTS: A total of 203 articles were examined. Five trials involving 953 patients met the inclusion criteria and contributed to the meta-analysis. Telephone contact intervention was no more effective than standard clinical care in improving glycemic control (pooled mean difference in HbA1c -0.38%, 95%CI -0.91 to 0.16%). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis showed that the phone contact intervention was no more effective than standard clinical care in improving glycemic control in diabetes. However, telephone intervention may still have potential benefits especially for low-and middle-income countries; thus further large sample size and well-controlled studies are needed to evaluate the impact of the intervention.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0089207

Cites

46 of 46 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?

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: 2

  1. [9]Institute of Medicine (1996) Telemedicine: a guide to assessing telecommunications for health care. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. 257 p. 20845554
  2. [16]Higgins JPT, Green S (2008) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. England: John Wiley & Sons. 672 p.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Suksomboon, N., Poolsup, N., & Nge, Y. L.
Affiliations
  • Mahidol University (TH)
  • Silpakorn University (TH)
Corresponding author
Poolsup, Nalinee
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2014-02-19
Volume
9
Issue
2
Pages
e89207
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1973782829
Cited by
58
References
46
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 2
FWCI
1.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Greater South Information System
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
Keywords
telephone-delivered intervention, glycemic control, diabetes mellitus, diabetes self-management, HbA1c, telemedicine, low- and middle-income countries
MeSH terms
Blood Glucose, Diabetes Mellitus, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Self Care, Telephone, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Reminder Systems

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