Structured population data were available for 8 of 8 supporting studies. 6 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 7 studies described adult participants.

1 supporting study does not have a displayable topic-matched quantitative effect.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: active_comparator, unknown_unresolved, usual_care.

Not extracted from the authoritative source.

Available source content was suppressed because validation identified a conflict.

Clinician-reference record is usable with limitations in: comparator.

Participants received virtually delivered education without real-time continuous glucose monitoring.

Education only

Latino adults with T2DM on no insulin or basal insulin only, were randomized 1:1 to virtually delivered education only (blinded CGM) or with cyclic RT-CGM.

Participants received virtually delivered education with real-time continuous glucose monitoring.

RT-CGM

Authoritative quality diagnostic: invalid or missing unit.

Authoritative quality diagnostic: invalid or missing value.

Culturally tailored education improves diabetes management in Latino adults

Usual Care

Core clinician-reference fields are available or not applicable.

Participants received a digital DSMES+CGM integrated solution for 6 months.

Digital DSMES+CGM

Participants with type 2 diabetes and HbA 1c of 8% or higher... were randomly assigned to a digital DSMES+CGM integrated solution (n=51) or usual care (n=49) for 6 months.

Participants received standard care for diabetes management for 6 months.

Authoritative quality diagnostic: sample size arm total mismatch.

Digital Diabetes Program Improves Glycemic Control in Adults

Conventional outpatient education

Participants received face-to-face education and remote monitoring during the first 3 months.

Digital Education Platform User Group

In the intervention group, physicians used the digital education platform to provide face-to-face education at enrollment and at the 3- and 6-month visits, along with remote monitoring during the first 3 months of the 6-month study period.

Participants received conventional outpatient education without remote monitoring.

The control group received conventional outpatient education.

Digital education platform improves glycemic control in type 2 diabetes.

Standard-DSMES

Participants received diabetes self-management education and support with family involvement.

Family-DSMES

Dyads, consisting of a PWD and family member/support person, were randomized at a ratio of 1:1 to either Family-DSMES or Standard-DSMES.

Participants received diabetes self-management education and support without family involvement.

Family-DSMES improves diabetes outcomes in diverse adults

Control Group (G0)

Participants received routine community-based diabetes management with no self-management activities.

The control group (G0) received routine health management according to the National Essential Public Health Services guidelines, with no self-management activities.

This group focused on oral health education, the relationship between periodontal disease and diabetes, and regular follow-up maintenance.

Periodontal Intervention Group (G1)

The G1 group focused on oral health education, the relationship between periodontal disease and diabetes, periodontal disease treatments (surgical/non-surgical), and regular follow-up maintenance.

This group focused on diabetes-related knowledge, self-management skills, psychological adjustment, and healthy lifestyle habits.

Diabetes Intervention Group (G2)

The G2 group focused on diabetes-related knowledge, diabetes self-management skills, psychological adjustment, physical exercise, a healthy diet, medication usage, blood glucose self-monitoring, and the management of complications.

This group received a combined intervention including content from both the G1 and G2 groups.

Comprehensive Intervention Group (G3)

The G3 group received a combined intervention including content from both the G1 and G2 groups.

Integrated intervention improves diabetes and oral health outcomes

Routine Care

Delivered by trained nurses, consisting of two DSMES sessions.

Nurse-led DSMES

The nurse-led group was delivered only by nurses, while the peer-assisted group was delivered by nurses with peer assistance.

Delivered by nurses with assistance from trained lay volunteers.

Peer-assisted DSMES

The peer-assisted group was delivered by nurses with peer assistance.

Participants received standard diabetes care including regular clinical visits.

Participants in the routine care (control) clusters received standard diabetes care including regular clinical visits to DM clinics in the PCUs.

Scalable diabetes education improves care coordination

Diabetes self-management education via face-to-face encounter

Participants received diabetes self-management education via telemedicine.

Telemedicine Group

Subjects in the intervention group received DSME via telemedicine.

Participants received diabetes self-management education via face-to-face encounter.

Subjects in the control group received DSME via face-to-face encounter.

Telemedicine improves diabetes self-management education access

Standard care diabetes education (DE)

Participants received a structured diabetes education programme via two one-to-one telephone calls with a registered dietitian and free membership of Weight Watchers for 6 months.

Tailored diabetes education and behavioural weight management programme (DEW)

Participants randomised to DEW (the ‘intervention’) received a structured diabetes education programme via two one-to-one telephone calls with a registered dietitian (provided by WW) and free membership of WW for 6 months.

Participants attended a 6 h diabetes education workshop delivered by trained healthcare professionals in local healthcare or community venues.

Participants allocated to DE (‘control’) attended a 6 h diabetes education workshop (DESMOND) delivered by two trained healthcare professionals in local healthcare or community venues in groups of up to ten participants.

Weight management program shows little effect on HbA1c but aids weight loss.

Structured population data were available for 3 of 3 supporting studies. 1 study described participants with type 2 diabetes. 3 studies described adult participants.

Structured population data were available for 3 of 3 supporting studies. 2 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 3 studies described adult participants.

1 study contains conflicting p-value and significance fields; those significance claims are suppressed.

Structured population data were available for 4 of 4 supporting studies. 3 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 4 studies described adult participants.

Upstream consistency scoring indicates mixed findings across the evidence.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: active_comparator, usual_care.

Structured population data were available for 8 of 8 supporting studies. 4 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 8 studies described adult participants.

1 relevant study has unresolved authoritative design evidence and does not contribute to design-specific or RoB-specific claims.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: baseline_within_group, unknown_unresolved, usual_care.

2 supporting studies have high, serious, critical, unclear, or unavailable risk-of-bias information.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: baseline_within_group, usual_care.

2 supporting studies do not have a displayable topic-matched quantitative effect.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: active_comparator, unknown_unresolved.

3 supporting studies have high, serious, critical, unclear, or unavailable risk-of-bias information.

Structured population data were available for 4 of 4 supporting studies. 4 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 4 studies described adult participants.

Structured population data were available for 5 of 5 supporting studies. Diabetes type was heterogeneous: 2 studies with type 1 diabetes, 1 studies with type 2 diabetes. Age groups were heterogeneous: 2 studies with adult participants, 1 studies with youth participants.

2 relevant studies have unresolved authoritative design evidence and do not contribute to design-specific or RoB-specific claims.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: baseline_within_group, other, usual_care.

4 of 5 studies with duration data have follow-up of 12 weeks or less.

Structured population data were available for 10 of 11 supporting studies. Diabetes type was heterogeneous: 5 studies with type 2 diabetes, 2 studies with type 1 diabetes. 8 studies described adult participants.

3 relevant studies have unresolved authoritative design evidence and do not contribute to design-specific or RoB-specific claims.

3 supporting studies do not have a displayable topic-matched quantitative effect.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: active_comparator, baseline_within_group, placebo, unknown_unresolved, usual_care.

1 supporting study lacks usable structured population information.

4 supporting studies have high, serious, critical, unclear, or unavailable risk-of-bias information.

Structured population data were available for 8 of 8 supporting studies. 7 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 7 studies described adult participants.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: active_comparator, baseline_within_group, placebo.

1 supporting study has high, serious, critical, unclear, or unavailable risk-of-bias information.

Structured population data were available for 4 of 4 supporting studies. 4 studies described participants with type 1 diabetes. 2 studies described adult participants.

Structured population data were available for 8 of 8 supporting studies. Diabetes type was heterogeneous: 4 studies with type 2 diabetes, 1 studies with type 1 diabetes. Age groups were heterogeneous: 4 studies with adult participants, 1 studies with youth participants.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: active_comparator, placebo, usual_care.

5 of 8 studies with duration data have follow-up of 12 weeks or less.

Structured population data were available for 3 of 3 supporting studies. 3 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 3 studies described adult participants.

3 of 3 studies with duration data have follow-up of 12 weeks or less.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: active_comparator, placebo.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: active_comparator, baseline_within_group.

Structured population data were available for 3 of 3 supporting studies. Diabetes type was heterogeneous: 1 studies with type 1 diabetes, 1 studies with type 2 diabetes. 2 studies described adult participants.

Structured population data were available for 13 of 13 supporting studies. 11 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 12 studies described adult participants.

4 relevant studies have unresolved authoritative design evidence and do not contribute to design-specific or RoB-specific claims.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: active_comparator, baseline_within_group, usual_care.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: unknown_unresolved, usual_care.

Structured population data were available for 3 of 3 supporting studies. Diabetes type was heterogeneous: 2 studies with type 2 diabetes, 1 studies with type 1 diabetes. Age groups were heterogeneous: 2 studies with adult participants, 1 studies with youth participants.

Structured population data were available for 12 of 12 supporting studies. Diabetes type was heterogeneous: 9 studies with type 2 diabetes, 1 studies with type 1 diabetes. 12 studies described adult participants.

9 supporting studies have high, serious, critical, unclear, or unavailable risk-of-bias information.

Structured population data were available for 5 of 5 supporting studies. 5 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 4 studies described adult participants.

Structured population data were available for 3 of 3 supporting studies. 2 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 2 studies described adult participants.

Structured population data were available for 2 of 3 supporting studies. 2 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 2 studies described adult participants.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: active_comparator, placebo, unknown_unresolved.

Structured population data were available for 10 of 10 supporting studies. Diabetes type was heterogeneous: 8 studies with type 2 diabetes, 2 studies with type 1 diabetes. Age groups were heterogeneous: 8 studies with adult participants, 1 studies with youth participants.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: active_comparator, other, usual_care.

3 studies contain conflicting p-value and significance fields; those significance claims are suppressed.

Structured population data were available for 4 of 4 supporting studies. 2 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 4 studies described adult participants.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: other, usual_care.

2 of 4 studies with duration data have follow-up of 12 weeks or less.

Structured population data were available for 4 of 4 supporting studies. Diabetes type was heterogeneous: 2 studies with type 2 diabetes, 1 studies with type 1 diabetes. 4 studies described adult participants.

Structured population data were available for 5 of 5 supporting studies. 5 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 5 studies described adult participants.

Structured population data were available for 11 of 11 supporting studies. 10 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 11 studies described adult participants.

Structured population data were available for 6 of 6 supporting studies. 6 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 6 studies described adult participants.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: active_comparator, baseline_within_group, unknown_unresolved, usual_care.

Structured population data were available for 7 of 7 supporting studies. Diabetes type was heterogeneous: 2 studies with type 2 diabetes, 1 studies with type 1 diabetes. 5 studies described adult participants.

Structured population data were available for 5 of 5 supporting studies. 3 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 4 studies described adult participants.

Structured population data were available for 5 of 5 supporting studies. Diabetes type was heterogeneous: 4 studies with type 2 diabetes, 1 studies with type 1 diabetes. 3 studies described adult participants.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: baseline_within_group, placebo, usual_care.

DSMES × HbA1c

Available supporting studies