Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31346638›Full record

ReviewDer Internist2019

[Diabetes treatment 2.0: telemedicine].

A Waschkau, T Uebel, J Steinhäuser

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Internist, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

3 authors.

A WaschkauInstitut für Allgemeinmedizin, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, Haus 50, 23538, Lübeck, Deutschland. alexander.waschkau@uni-luebeck.de.
T UebelInstitut für Allgemeinmedizin, Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg, Würzburg, Deutschland.
J SteinhäuserInstitut für Allgemeinmedizin, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, Haus 50, 23538, Lübeck, Deutschland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe prevalence of diabetes mellitus in Germany is between 5.8% and 9.5%. Telemedical applications (TA) can provide meaningful approaches in diabetes care. So far, however, TA have seldom undergone a structured research evaluation. This deficiency is considered to be one of the reasons why TA have rarely been implemented in routine care as yet.

objectivesWhat information about research evaluation can be identified in current TA that address diabetes therapy? MATERIALS AND

methodsIn order to identify the accompanying evaluation approaches of telemedical diabetes projects, the "vesta" information portal of the German Society for Telematics Applications for the Health Card (Gesellschaft für Telematikanwendungen der Gesundheitskarte mbH), the websites of the Innovation Fund at the Federal Joint Committee, PubMed, and gray literature were searched. Prevention projects were not included.

resultsTwelve projects were identified. For four of the projects, data from the accompanying research could be found, which refers to parameters such as HbA

conclusionsAs the results suggest, most of the telemedically supported diabetes projects are not being evaluated in a structured way as yet. Established instruments for the accompanying evaluation of TA are now being used.

Indexed as

TelemedicineDiabetes MellitusGermanyHumansImplementation ScienceMobile ApplicationsQuality of LifeDiabetes mellitus, type 1Diabetes mellitus, type 2Diabetes technologyImplementation scienceMobile applications

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.