ReviewJournal of diabetes science and technology2022
Navigating Diabetes Online Communities in Clinical Practice.
Review in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- An Evaluation of Digital Health Tools to Support Multidisciplinary Teams in Managing Patients with Type 2 Diabetes.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Review
- Determinants of the adoption of an online community for people with diabetes: a qualitative study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The Sugar-Coated Truth: The Quality of Diabetes Health Information on TikTok.Clinical diabetes : a publication of the American Diabetes Association · 2025Article
- Use of Online Communities among People with Type 2 Diabetes: A Scoping Review.Current diabetes reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis purpose of this study was to conduct a rapid review and environmental scan of diabetes online communities (DOCs) to highlight the clinical impact of DOC engagement and provide guidance to health care providers for navigating and prescribing DOCs.
methodsThis two-phase review included a rapid review of clinical outcomes and an assessment of DOC content. We conducted a literature search for studies evaluating DOC use and glucometric (glycated hemoglobin [A1C], time-in-range, hypoglycemia), behavioral, and psychosocial outcomes. The environmental scan of current DOC sites established key features, including available platforms, target population, content areas, and reach.
resultsTwelve papers were included-eight reported DOC use within a context of do-it-yourself (DIY) noncommercial, opensource hybrid closed loop systems community and four were non-DYI related. In latter, all studies were cross-sectional, describing patient-reported outcomes. Two studies reported A1C lowering with DOC use, two DOC use was associated with high self-efficacy, one showed association with higher self-care levels, and one showed higher quality of life scores when compared with population norms. All DIY studies showed improvement in glucometrics after initiation of sensor augmented pump technology with DOC support. Of 54 DOC sites reviewed in the environmental scan, 29 were included. Diabetes online community sites were heterogenous in social media platform and type of diabetes targeted.
conclusionDiabetes online communities have the potential to improve clinical, behavioral, and psychosocial outcomes. Randomized control trials and/or longitudinal prospective studies evaluating outcomes are needed to further examine the potential benefits of DOC use. Diabetes online communities are diverse and span a variety of social media platforms, providing clinicians opportunities to individualize recommendations for DOC use.
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.