HbA1c ReductionMobile app for diabetes self-management

Clinical evidence dossier

Mobile app for diabetes self-management

HbA1c

Evidence signal

Authoritative evidence signal

strong

This is an authoritative evidence signal supplied by Clinical Reference. It is not a formal clinical grade, treatment recommendation, or pooled effect estimate.

Evidence snapshot

Authoritative support records
4
Supporting studies available for review
4
Randomized trials
4
Reported effects
3

Clinical conclusion

Mobile app for diabetes self-management shows a strong positive evidence signal for improving HbA1c across the studied comparisons.

Observed effects

Observed study estimates; not a pooled treatment effect.

Change from baseline

Mean difference

-0.34 to -0.34 %

1 eligible estimates13–13 weeksObserved median: -0.34 %

Between-group effect

Mean difference

-2.9 to -0.4 %

2 eligible estimates12–24 weeksObserved median: -1.65 %

Evidence composition

Non-randomized studies
0
Other designs
0
Unresolved designs
0
Magnitude-eligible effects
3

Consistency

Authoritative consistency classification

consistent

Positive
3
No effect
1
Mixed
0
Negative
0

Population and applicability

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

This population information refers to the materialized supporting studies available for review. Omitted support records remain part of the authoritative support accounting and are available through the audit experience.

View reported population descriptions

These descriptions are reported across the supporting studies; they are not a single synthesized population.

  • Young Adult (19–39)
  • Middle Aged (40-64)
  • Male
  • Female
  • with T2 Diabetes
  • Adults diagnosed with type 2 diabetes.
  • Individuals seeking to improve their diabetes management through digital tools.
  • Adults diagnosed with Type 2 Diabetes.
  • Individuals seeking to improve their diabetes self-management.

Limitations

  • 1 supporting study does not have a displayable topic-matched quantitative effect.
  • Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: other, usual_care.
  • 2 of 4 studies with duration data have follow-up of 12 weeks or less.

Supporting evidence

Inspect the authoritative studies and omitted support records for this dossier.

View supporting evidence