SynthesisJournal of diabetes science and technology2023
Remotely Delivered Monitoring and Management of Diabetes-Related Foot Disease: An Overview of Systematic Reviews.
Synthesis in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Australian guideline on prevention of foot ulceration: part of the 2021 Australian evidence-based guidelines for diabetes-related foot disease.Journal of foot and ankle research · 2022Guideline
- Effectiveness of Remotely Delivered Interventions to Simultaneously Optimize Management of Hypertension, Hyperglycemia and Dyslipidemia in People With Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2022Pooled it
- Taking the Next Step: How Can Implementation Science Advance Diabetes Foot Care for Rural and Remote Australians?Journal of foot and ankle research · 2026Article
- PICO-based assessment and categorization of evidence for digital health interventions: an inductive framework development.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- AI-Powered Remote Monitoring for Lower Extremity Wound Management: A Randomized Controlled Trial Protocol.JVS-vascular insights · 2025Article
- Knowledge, attitudes and practices on diabetic foot care among nurses in Kimberley, South Africa.South African family practice : official journal of the South African Academy of Family Practice/Primary Care · 2024Article
- The impact of eHealth on relationships and trust in primary care: a review of reviews.BMC primary care · 2023Review
- Hospital stays and costs of telemedical monitoring versus standard follow-up for diabetic foot ulcer: an open-label randomised controlled study.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2023Article
- Perceptions of Australians with diabetes-related foot disease on requirements for effective secondary prevention.The Australian journal of rural health · 2023Article
- Implementation of a patient-centered remote wound monitoring system for management of diabetic foot ulcers.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2023Article
- Clinical risk in remote consultations in general practice: findings from in-COVID-19 pandemic qualitative research.BJGP open · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDiabetes-related foot disease (DFD) management requires input from multiple healthcare professionals, and has worse outcomes for people living in remote localities by comparison to urban areas. Remotely delivered healthcare may reduce this disparity. This overview summarizes current evidence on the effectiveness, stakeholder perceptions, and cost-effectiveness of remotely delivered healthcare for DFD.
methodsA search of 5 databases was conducted to identify systematic reviews published between January 2000 and June 2020. Eligible reviews were those evaluating remotely delivered monitoring or management of patients at risk of or with active DFD, or clinicians managing these patients. Risk of bias was assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool.
resultsEight reviews were eligible for inclusion, including 88 primary studies and 8509 participants, of which 36 studies involving 4357 participants evaluated remotely delivered monitoring or management of DFD. Only one review had a low risk of bias, with most reviews demonstrating limited search strategies and poor reporting of participants. Evidence on effectiveness was mixed, with meta-analyses demonstrating long-term ulcer healing and mortality were not significantly different between telehealth and standard care groups, although the lower-limb amputation rate was significantly decreased in one meta-analysis. Perceptions of telehealth by patients and clinicians were generally positive, whilst acknowledging limitations relating to access and use. Cost-effectiveness data were limited, with poor reporting preventing clear conclusions.
conclusionsRemotely delivered healthcare of DFD is well received by patients and clinicians, but its effectiveness is unclear. High quality trials are needed to evaluate the risks and benefits of remotely delivered DFD management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.