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.

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

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

Conventional outpatient education

Core clinician-reference fields are available or not applicable.

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.

Usual care

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

Not extracted from the authoritative source.

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

Participants received culturally tailored and patient-vetted diabetes educational materials.

EM-alone

EM-alone participants received culturally tailored and patient-vetted diabetes EM.

Participants received motivational interviewing-based coaching from certified lay health coaches.

HC+EM

HC+EM participants received motivational interviewing–based coaching from certified lay health coaches.

Participants received personalized and tailored text messages.

TM+EM

TM+EM participants received personalized and tailored messages.

Text Messaging Improves Diabetes Self-Care More Than Educational Materials Alone

Wait-list Control Group

Participants had access to the virtual platform for 12 months.

Access to a virtual care platform for diabetes management

Participants randomized to the intervention group had access to the virtual platform for 12 months.

Participants received access to the virtual care platform after 6 months.

Participants in the wait-list control group received access after 6 months.

Virtual diabetes care improves glycaemic control in young adults

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: 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 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.

Remote multiprofessional educational program × HbA1c

Available supporting studies

Digital education platform improves glycemic control in type 2 diabetes.

Educational intervention improves glycemic control in type 2 diabetes patients

Text Messaging Improves Diabetes Self-Care More Than Educational Materials Alone

Virtual diabetes care improves glycaemic control in young adults