Table 3.
Example of an evidence summary table
| Author/Yr | Sample Size | Technology | Duration | Delivery Frequency | Control | Intervention | Measures | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Months | C vs. I | |||||||
| Benhamou 2007 10 | 30 | SMS, V, PDA, I | 12 | Weekly | No weekly SMS support | Weekly SMS diabetes treatment advice from their health care providers based on weekly transfer of SMBG and QOL survey every three months | HbA1c | +0.12 vs − 0.14%, P<0.10 |
| SMBG | +5 vs −6 mg/dl, P=0.06 | |||||||
| QOL score | 0.0 vs +5.6, p< .05 | |||||||
| Satisfaction with Life | −0.01 vs + 8.1, P<.05 | |||||||
| Hypo episodes | 79.1 vs 69.1/patient, NS | |||||||
| No of BG tests/day | −.16 vs − .11/day, NS | |||||||
| Marquez Contreras 2004 11 | 104 | SMS | 4 | Twice/Week | Standard treatment | SMS messages with recommendations to control Blood Pressure | % of compliers | 51.5% vs. 64.7%, P=NS |
| Rate of compliance | 88.1%vs. 91.9%, p=NS | |||||||
| % of patients with BP control | 85.7% vs. 84.4%, P=NS |
Notes: BP = blood pressure, HbA1c = Hemoglobin A1c, Hypo = hypoglycemic, I = Internet, NS = not significant, PDA = personal digital assistant, QOL = quality of life, SMBG = self-monitored blood glucose, SMS = short message service, V = voice