Wang 2017.
| Study characteristics | ||
| Methods |
Telemedicine in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus RCT (NA clusters and NA providers), conducted in 1) Department of Endocrinology and Metabolic Diseases, First Hospital of Jilin University. Information transmitted via glucometer. 2) The medical team at the medical centre logged onto the website every 2 weeks to analyse the patients’ information and to deliver the medical team’s advice to the patient. In China. 2 arms: 1. Control (conventional medical treatment) (control arm) and 2. Intervention (U‐healthcare) (intervention arm) |
|
| Participants | Control arm N: 106 Intervention arm N: 106, NA, NA Diabetes type: 2 Mean age: 53.65 ± 9.8 % Male: NR Longest follow‐up: 6 months |
|
| Interventions |
Control arm: (conventional medical treatment) 1) Promotion of self‐management Intervention arm: (U‐healthcare) 1) Case management 2) Team change 3) Electronic patient registry 4) Facilitated relay of clinical information 5) Promotion of self‐management 6) Patient reminders |
|
| Outcomes | Glycated haemoglobin Systolic blood pressure Diastolic blood pressure Low‐density lipoprotein |
|
| Funding source | This study was supported by the Science Technology Department of Jilin Province (20150414054GH) | |
| Notes | — | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | A total of 212 patients met the inclusion criteria in the screening and were randomised into the intervention group (106 patients) and control group (106 patients). |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | A total of 212 patients met the inclusion criteria in the screening and were randomised into the intervention group (106 patients) and control group (106 patients). |
| Patient's baseline characteristics (selection bias) | Low risk | No statistically significant differences were observed between the intervention group and control group in baseline data including age, diabetes course, physical examination or biochemistry (P > 0.05) except for triglyceride (TG) levels (P = 0.001). |
| Patient's baseline outcomes (selection bias) | Unclear risk | No statistically significant differences were observed between the intervention group and control group in baseline data including age, diabetes course, physical examination or biochemistry (P > 0.05) except for triglyceride (TG) levels (P = 0.001). |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) | High risk | When the trial ended, 13 (11.8%) and 21 (19%) patients in the intervention and control groups dropped out, respectively. |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) and of outcome assessors (detection bias) | Low risk | Objective measure for HbA1c, BP and LDL. |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Unclear risk | No protocol registered. Many more outcomes than methods described. |
| Risk of contamination (other bias) | High risk | This study was conducted for a period of 6 months, during which both groups regularly visited the clinic every 3 months for physical and blood biochemical examination and received follow‐up and ambulatory treatment by the same medical team. |
| Other bias | Low risk | NA |