Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27458809›Full record

Trial reportPLoS medicine2016

Supported Telemonitoring and Glycemic Control in People with Type 2 Diabetes: The Telescot Diabetes Pragmatic Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

Sarah H Wild, Janet Hanley, Stephanie C Lewis, John A McKnight, Lucy B McCloughan, Paul L Padfield, Richard A Parker, Mary Paterson, Hilary Pinnock, Aziz Sheikh and 1 more

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled TrialPragmatic Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PLoS medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 55 papers, 19 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed, 19 pooled it
9.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

55 citing papers in PubMed, 19 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 120 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Trial
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Sarah H WildUsher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom.
Janet HanleyEdinburgh Napier University School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Care, Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom.
Stephanie C LewisUsher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom.
John A McKnightMetabolic Unit, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom.
Lucy B McCloughanUsher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4099-6183
Paul L PadfieldCollege of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom.
Richard A ParkerUsher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom.
Mary PatersonUsher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3064-4029
Hilary PinnockUsher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom.
Aziz SheikhUsher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom.
Brian McKinstryUsher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom.
University of Edinburgh · GBEdinburgh Napier University · GBWestern General Hospital · GB

Funding

Chief Scientist Office ARPG/07/03Medical Research Council MC_PC_13040Medical Research Council MR/K007017/1Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSelf-monitoring of blood glucose among people with type 2 diabetes not treated with insulin does not appear to be effective in improving glycemic control. We investigated whether health professional review of telemetrically transmitted self-monitored glucose results in improved glycemic control in people with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes. METHODS AND

findingsWe performed a randomized, parallel, investigator-blind controlled trial with centralized randomization in family practices in four regions of the United Kingdom among 321 people with type 2 diabetes and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) >58 mmol/mol. The supported telemonitoring intervention involved self-measurement and transmission to a secure website of twice-weekly morning and evening glucose for review by family practice clinicians who were not blinded to allocation group. The control group received usual care, with at least annual review and more frequent reviews for people with poor glycemic or blood pressure control. HbA1c assessed at 9 mo was the primary outcome. Intention-to-treat analyses were performed. 160 people were randomized to the intervention group and 161 to the usual care group between June 6, 2011, and July 19, 2013. HbA1c data at follow-up were available for 146 people in the intervention group and 139 people in the control group. The mean (SD) HbA1c at follow-up was 63.0 (15.5) mmol/mol in the intervention group and 67.8 (14.7) mmol/mol in the usual care group. For primary analysis, adjusted mean HbA1c was 5.60 mmol/mol / 0.51% lower (95% CI 2.38 to 8.81 mmol/mol/ 95% CI 0.22% to 0.81%, p = 0·0007). For secondary analyses, adjusted mean ambulatory systolic blood pressure was 3.06 mmHg lower (95% CI 0.56-5.56 mmHg, p = 0.017) and mean ambulatory diastolic blood pressure was 2.17 mmHg lower (95% CI 0.62-3.72, p = 0.006) among people in the intervention group when compared with usual care after adjustment for baseline differences and minimization strata. No significant differences were identified between groups in weight, treatment pattern, adherence to medication, or quality of life in secondary analyses. There were few adverse events and these were equally distributed between the intervention and control groups. In secondary analysis, there was a greater number of telephone calls between practice nurses and patients in the intervention compared with control group (rate ratio 7.50 (95% CI 4.45-12.65, p < 0.0001) but no other significant differences between groups in use of health services were identified between groups. Key limitations include potential lack of representativeness of trial participants, inability to blind participants and health professionals, and uncertainty about the mechanism, the duration of the effect, and the optimal length of the intervention.

conclusionsSupported telemonitoring resulted in clinically important improvements in control of glycaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes in family practice. Current Controlled Trials, registration number ISRCTN71674628.

trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN 71674628.

Indexed as

TelemetryAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBlood Glucose Self-MonitoringDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2FemaleGlycated HemoglobinHumansMaleMiddle AgedTelemedicineGlycated Hemoglobinhemoglobin A1c protein, human

Identifiers

PMID27458809
PMCPMC4961438
OpenAlexW2503534369

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.