Trial reportPediatric diabetes2026
A randomized trial comparing supplemental video care and asynchronous remote monitoring among young people with type 1 diabetes and elevated glycemic levels.
Trial report in Pediatric diabetes, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Telehealth can enable supplemental care to young people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in need of frequent guidance or treatment changes. However, the relative benefits of different telehealth modalities (e.g., synchronous video visits versus asynchronous remote patient monitoring [RPM]) for specific populations remain unclear. We conducted a three-arm randomized controlled trial comparing supplemental monthly video visits or monthly RPM versus usual care over 6 months among young people aged 5-18 years with established T1D and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) > 8%. The study cohort of 65 participants was 57% publicly insured, with 54% White and 26% Hispanic/Latino, a mean age of 13.4 years, a T1D duration of 5.8 years, a baseline HbA1c of 9.7%, and high baseline use of continuous glucose monitoring (98%) and insulin pumps (77%). Both study arms experienced high rates of attrition (45% among video participants, 35% among RPM participants). Compared with RPM encounters, video visits were longer (mean: 29.8 vs 17.2 min,
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.