SynthesisBMC primary care2026
Effectiveness of mHealth interventions on glycemic outcomes in adults with type 2 diabetes in Gulf countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC primary care, 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
backgroundType 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) poses a major public health challenge in Gulf countries and has among the highest global prevalence; although mobile health (mHealth) interventions have demonstrated global benefits for diabetes self-management, region-specific evidence remains limited.
objectiveTo assess the effectiveness of mHealth interventions compared with usual care for glycemic control among adults with T2DM in Gulf countries.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched from inception to May 15, 2025. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and analytical observational studies comparing mHealth interventions with usual care in adults with T2DM in Gulf countries were included. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A random-effects meta-analysis estimated pooled mean differences in HbA1c.
resultsThe search yielded 516 records, of which three studies involving 371 participants (mHealth n = 216; usual care n = 155) met the inclusion criteria. Two studies were conducted in Saudi Arabia, and one was conducted in the United Arab Emirates. Interventions included WhatsApp-based diabetes self-management education, mHealth-enabled health coaching, and hybrid care models with remote monitoring. The primary meta-analysis revealed a statistically significant reduction in HbA1c, favoring mHealth interventions compared with usual care (pooled mean difference - 0.86%; 95% CI: -1.48 to - 0.24; I² = 0%). However, sensitivity analysis including only RCTs yielded an inconclusive estimate, with a pooled mean difference of - 1.02% (95% CI: -6.34 to 4.29; I² = 49%).
conclusionsLimited evidence suggests that mHealth interventions may improve glycemic control among adults with type 2 diabetes in Gulf countries. However, the evidence should be interpreted cautiously given the small number of studies and the inconclusive findings of the sensitivity analysis. Larger, high quality RCTs with longer follow-up periods are needed to confirm their effectiveness and inform policy.
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.