ReviewPreventive medicine reports2026
Telemedicine for cardiometabolic disease control in Latin America and the Caribbean: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Preventive medicine reports, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of telemedicine for cardiometabolic disease control in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC). Methods: We systematically searched international and regional databases from inception to 17 December 2025 for telemedicine interventions in adults with type 2 diabetes, hypertension, or dyslipidaemia in LAC. Risk of bias and certainty of evidence were assessed using validated tools and GRADE, respectively. Random-effects meta-analyses included clinically comparable randomised trials. Results: Twenty-two studies from 10 countries were included (11 randomised). Meta-analyses included seven trials (935 participants) for HbA1c, four (451) for systolic blood pressure, and three (280) for diastolic blood pressure. Pooled estimates favoured telemedicine for HbA1c (MD -0.62%, 95% CI -1.02, -0.22; low certainty), systolic blood pressure (MD -6.60 mmHg, 95% CI -9.49, -3.71; high certainty), and diastolic blood pressure (MD -4.25 mmHg, 95% CI -6.53, -1.98; moderate certainty). HbA1c heterogeneity was substantial (I Conclusions: Selected telemedicine interventions may improve intermediate cardiometabolic outcomes in specific LAC settings. However, limited and heterogeneous evidence, variable certainty, and insufficient evidence on long-term effectiveness, scalability, cost-effectiveness, and equity preclude broad implementation recommendations. PROSPERO: CRD420251234521.
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.