Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22215057›Full record

SynthesisJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA

Systematic review and evaluation of web-accessible tools for management of diabetes and related cardiovascular risk factors by patients and healthcare providers.

Catherine H Yu, Robinder Bahniwal, Andreas Laupacis, Eman Leung, Michael S Orr, Sharon E Straus

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Educational Processes for Health and Disease Self-Management in Public Health: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Catherine H YuKeenan Research Centre, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada. yuca@smh.ca
Robinder Bahniwal
Andreas Laupacis
Eman Leung
Michael S Orr
Sharon E Straus

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo identify and evaluate the effectiveness, clinical usefulness, sustainability, and usability of web-compatible diabetes-related tools. DATA SOURCES: Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, world wide web. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were included if they described an electronic audiovisual tool used as a means to educate patients, care givers, or clinicians about diabetes management and assessed a psychological, behavioral, or clinical outcome. DATA EXTRACTION: Study abstraction and evaluation for clinical usefulness, sustainability, and usability were performed by two independent reviewers.

resultsOf 12,616 citations and 1541 full-text articles reviewed, 57 studies met inclusion criteria. Forty studies used experimental designs (25 randomized controlled trials, one controlled clinical trial, 14 before-after studies), and 17 used observational designs. Methodological quality and ratings for clinical usefulness and sustainability were variable, and there was a high prevalence of usability errors. Tools showed moderate but inconsistent effects on a variety of psychological and clinical outcomes including HbA1c and weight. Meta-regression of adequately reported studies (12 studies, 2731 participants) demonstrated that, although the interventions studied resulted in positive outcomes, this was not moderated by clinical usefulness nor usability. LIMITATION: This review is limited by the number of accessible tools, exclusion of tools for mobile devices, study quality, and the use of non-validated scales.

conclusionFew tools were identified that met our criteria for effectiveness, usefulness, sustainability, and usability. Priority areas include identifying strategies to minimize website attrition and enabling patients and clinicians to make informed decisions about website choice by encouraging reporting of website quality indicators.

Indexed as

InternetMedical Informatics ApplicationsAudiovisual AidsCardiovascular DiseasesConsumer Health InformationDiabetes MellitusHumansInformation ServicesSelf CareSocial SupportTechnology Assessment, Biomedical

Identifiers

PMID22215057
PMCPMC3384097

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.