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.

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

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

Usual care

Core clinician-reference fields are available or not applicable.

Participants received the CHIP intervention over 12 weeks in a hybrid format.

Hybrid online/in-person implementation of the Complete Health Improvement Program (CHIP)

Patients were randomly assigned to CHIP over 12 weeks in a hybrid online/in-person format plus usual care.

Participants received usual care, which consisted of access to standard Geisinger Health Plan diabetes-related services.

Patients were randomly assigned to CHIP over 12 weeks in a hybrid online/in-person format plus usual care or usual care alone.

Authoritative quality diagnostic: p value significance conflict.

Authoritative quality diagnostic: sample size arm total mismatch.

CHIP improves health outcomes in adults with type 2 diabetes

Participants received cognitive behavior therapy along with usual care.

CBT plus usual care

Overall 1033 persons with T2DM and poor sleep quality received CBT plus usual care or usual care.

Participants received usual care provided by general practitioners.

The control group was only given UC by general practitioners.

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Enhances Sleep and Lowers Blood Sugar in Diabetes

Usual Care (UC) Arm

Participants in this arm used Dexcom G6 for continuous glucose monitoring.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) Arm

Participants were randomly assigned to Dexcom G6 CGM (n=30) use or usual care (UC) (n=15) consisting of Safe-Accu glucose monitors and strips.

Participants in this arm performed home blood glucose monitoring using Safe-Accu glucose meters.

Participants in the UC arm were asked to perform home blood glucose monitoring using Safe-Accu glucose meters and test strips at least once daily.

Continuous glucose monitoring may improve diabetes management in rural Malawi

Participants received standard diabetes management including a glucose meter and monitoring logbook.

Conventional diabetes management

G1 participated in conventional diabetes management. They were provided with the Dnurse He pro wisdom, a standard portable glucose meter developed by Beijing Dnurse Technology Co., Ltd. based in Beijing, China, and a blood glucose monitoring logbook.

Participants received standard management plus weekly phone reminders for self-monitoring.

Telephone Follow-Up Group

G2 participants received the same materials as G1, along with weekly phone reminders to consistently self-monitor their blood glucose levels.

Participants used a smart glucose meter and the Dnurse App for self-management.

App Group

The participants in G3 were provided with the Dnurse SPUG mobile blood glucose and uric acid tester, a smart blood glucose meter developed by Beijing Dnurse Technology Co., Ltd.

Participants received both the app and weekly phone reminders.

App & Telephone Follow-Up Group

G4 received the same materials and training as G3, along with weekly phone reminders similar to those given to G2.

Diabetes APP may improve blood glucose control in T2DM patients

Usual Care Group (Control)

Participants followed a diet with 1000–1200 kcal energy, restricted to 40% carbohydrates.

Calorie-Carbohydrate Restriction (CCR) Group

Patients with type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned to calorie-carbohydrate restriction (CCR) group.

Participants followed the same diet as CCR within a defined 16:8 time-restricted eating window.

Intermittent Fasting with Calorie-Carbohydrate Restriction (IFCCR) Group

Patients with type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned to intermittent fasting with calorie-carbohydrate restriction (IFCCR) group.

Participants received standard guideline-based dietary, physical activity, and diabetes education.

The control group received standard guideline-based dietary, physical activity, and diabetes education.

Dietary interventions improve diabetes remission rates

Participants attended a structured training program at home to improve glycemic control and health literacy.

Family-based, health literacy-adapted educational program

The intervention group participated in a structured home education program, while the control group continued to receive standard care during routine visits.

Participants continued receiving usual care, including regular visits to the diabetes outpatient clinic.

Participants in the control group continued receiving usual care, which included regular visits to the DOC.

Educational intervention improves glycemic control in type 2 diabetes patients

Usual nursing care

Participants received receptive music therapy in addition to usual nursing care.

Receptive music therapy + usual nursing care

They were randomly assigned (1:1) to an intervention group (RMT + usual nursing care, n = 40) or control group (usual nursing care only, n = 40) for 8 weeks.

Participants received usual nursing care only.

Music Therapy Improves Cognition and Quality of Life in Diabetic Elderly

Conventional care

Participants received coordinated care from a nurse researcher, including insulin titration and regular follow-up.

Nurse-led diabetic follow-up clinic

The nursing intervention included coordinated care between the nurse, physician, and diabetic patient.

Patients received routine or standard nursing care in the Diabetic OPD Clinic without follow-up or insulin titration by a nurse.

The Control Group patients received routine or standard nursing care in the Diabetic OPD Clinic.

Nurse-led clinics improve glycemic control in type 2 diabetes patients

Regular Group (RG)

Patients received individualised nutrition and insulin pump therapy supported by continuous glucose monitoring and the QCC nursing model.

Experimental Group (EG)

Patients were assigned to either the experimental group (EG), which received individualised nutrition and insulin pump therapy supported by CGM and the QCC nursing model.

Patients were assigned to the regular group (RG), which received standard care.

Authoritative quality diagnostic: invalid or missing unit.

Authoritative quality diagnostic: invalid or missing value.

QCC Model Enhances Diabetes Management

Diabetes education during routine outpatient clinic visits

Participants received weekly telephone consultations during which glucose records, dietary patterns, and insulin dose adjustments were reviewed.

Telecounseling group

Participants in Intervention group received weekly telephone consultations from diabetes educators, during which glucose records, dietary patterns, and insulin dose adjustments were reviewed.

Control group received diabetes education during routine outpatient clinic visits.

Telemonitoring improves glycemic control in pediatric diabetes

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

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.

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. 6 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 7 studies described adult participants.

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

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 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.

Usual care × HbA1c

Available supporting studies