The current landscape of remote patient monitoring regarding diabetes mellitus and hypoglycemia: protocol for a scoping review
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus is characterized by impaired glucose regulation, predisposing patients to both hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia. Hypoglycemia, particularly frequent in insulin-treated individuals, remains a serious but underrecognized complication. Remote patient monitoring (RPM) technologies, such as continuous glucose monitors, smartphone apps, and hybrid closed-loop systems with remote monitoring capabilities, have emerged as promising tools to improve glycemic control and prevent hypoglycemia in nonclinical settings. Evidence examining the use of RPM technologies has expanded rapidly; however, the scope, characteristics, and reported outcomes of these interventions remain fragmented across modalities and settings. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aims to systematically map and describe the extent, range, and characteristics of published evidence on RPM interventions for glycemic management among adults with type 1 and type 2 diabetes in nonclinical settings. METHODS: The review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methodology and adhere to the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) reporting guidelines. The population, concept, and context framework defines the population as adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes who experience or are at risk for hypoglycemia; the concept as RPM techniques (continuous glucose monitors, hybrid closed-loop systems with remote monitoring capabilities, telemedicine, and smartphone apps); and the context as nonclinical environments. The PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases will be searched, supplemented by gray literature. Eligible studies will include clinical trials, observational studies, and cohort studies; reviews, case studies, and non-English articles will be excluded. Two independent reviewers will conduct screening, data extraction, and summarization. Findings will be synthesized descriptively in tabular and narrative formats. RESULTS: At the time of submission, the protocol has been registered, and the formal search strategy is being finalized. As of March 2026, the formal database search has been completed, and screening of studies is scheduled to begin in April 2026. CONCLUSIONS: This protocol outlines a structured approach to mapping the current landscape of RPM interventions for glycemic management in nonclinical settings. The completed review will synthesize reported intervention characteristics and outcomes to clarify existing evidence and identify areas for future investigation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: OSF Registries 10.17605/OSF.IO/XNBWF; https://osf.io/xnbwf/overview. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/88197.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
There remains a critical knowledge gap regarding how technical modalities directly influence clinical workflow friction and human factor barriers at scale.
“there remains a critical knowledge gap regarding how technical modalities directly influence clinical workflow friction and human factor barriers at scale [1,12].”
From Clinical Efficacy and Patient Adherence Hurdles of Remote Patient Monitoring (RPM) Frameworks in Managing Hypertension and Type 2 Diabetes: A Scoping Review (2026) · cites this paper as [1]
The Discussion’s Future Directions section identifies gaps in implementation evaluation and comparative effectiveness across remote-monitoring modalities. The Anticipated Findings section also says the review will examine how usability and patient experience have been reported. Neither section establishes the more specific gap claimed here: how technical modalities directly affect clinical workflow friction and human-factor barriers at scale. (LLM, conf=0.81)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe study protocol was structured in accordance with PRISMA-ScR guidelines.
“The study protocol was structured in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines [1].”
The high prevalence of automated cloud and server-side uplinks reflects an industry-wide effort to minimize patient compliance burdens by removing active transmission steps.
“The high prevalence of automated cloud and server-side uplinks reflects an industry-wide effort to minimize patient compliance burdens by removing active transmission steps [1,5].”
From Clinical Efficacy and Patient Adherence Hurdles of Remote Patient Monitoring (RPM) Frameworks in Managing Hypertension and Type 2 Diabetes: A Scoping Review (2026) · cites this paper as [1]
The Methods (Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria; page unavailable) describe digital glucose-data transmission, and the Introduction (Background; page unavailable) mentions improved treatment adherence. Neither passage addresses the prevalence of automated cloud or server-side uplinks, removal of active transmission steps, or an industry-wide effort to reduce patient burden. Searches for those terms and for automatic data transmission found no supporting passage in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.75)
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.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 27 · Cited by 2
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- [18]The current landscape of remote patient monitoring with regard to diabetes and hypoglycemia: a scoping review protocol OSF 2026-04-10 https://osf.io/xnbwf/overview 42054697
- [19]Stephen MJ Akhavan B Batra K Chu MB Sagaribay R The current landscape of remote patient monitoring with regard to diabetes mellitus and hypoglycemia: a scoping review protocol JMIR Preprints Preprint posted online on November 20, 2025 10.2196/88197
- Authors
- Stephen, M. J., Akhavan, B., Chu, M. B., Batra, K., & Sagaribay, R.
- Affiliations
- University of Rochester (US)
- University of Nevada, Las Vegas (US)
- Corresponding author
- Sagaribay, Roberto
- Venue
- JMIR Research Protocols
- Publisher
- JMIR Publications Inc.
- Published
- 2026-04-29
- Volume
- 15
- Pages
- e88197
- ISSN
- 1929-0748 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC13173060
- OpenAlex
- W7131672779
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 27
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2
- FWCI
- 9.96
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- JMIR Research Protocols (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Digital Scholarship - UNLV (University of Nevada Reno) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- University of Rochester
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
- Keywords
- remote patient monitoring, diabetes mellitus, hypoglycemia, type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, continuous glucose monitoring, hybrid closed-loop system, telemedicine, mobile application, glycemic control, insulin-treated patients, hypoglycemia prevention, telehealth intervention, remote glucose monitoring
- MeSH terms
- Glycemic Control, Continuous Glucose Monitoring, Digital Health, Remote Patient Monitoring, Scoping Reviews as Topic, Blood Glucose, Diabetes Mellitus, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Humans, Hypoglycemia, 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.
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