Key finding
The systolic blood pressure (SBP) of the two APP groups was significantly lower than that of the other groups (P <.05).
This study evaluated the effectiveness of a diabetes app for blood glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes. It found that while the app did not significantly improve HbA1c or BMI, it was associated with lower systolic blood pressure and high participant satisfaction.
Evidence strength
Moderate confidence
Study type
RCTs
Follow-up
Medium-Term (3–12 mo)
Quick read
The essential study design details in one scan.
Population
Young Adult (19–39), Middle Aged (40-64), Male, Female, Asia-Pacific (APAC), with T2 Diabetes
Intervention
Usual Care, APP Group, Telephone Follow-Up
Study type
RCTs
Follow-up
Medium-Term (3–12 mo)
Primary outcome
HbA1c
Evidence
Moderate confidence
Plain-language summary
A plain-language read of the study's main message and where it applies.
Study focus
This study evaluated the effectiveness of a diabetes app for blood glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes. It found that while the app did not significantly improve HbA1c or BMI, it was associated with lower systolic blood pressure and high participant satisfaction.
These findings highlight the potential of digital health tools in managing chronic conditions like diabetes. Although the app did not significantly improve blood glucose levels, its ability to lower blood pressure and achieve high user satisfaction suggests it could be a valuable tool for patients and healthcare providers in managing type 2 diabetes.
The study did not measure long-term effects of the app. Sample size and characteristics may limit generalizability. No significant changes in key diabetes management metrics were observed.
Published in
Publication details and source links for this paper.
Hongxia T, Huiwen T, Jihong Z, et al. Effectiveness and Applicability of a Diabetes APP for Blood Glucose Control in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes. Frontiers in Endocrinology. 2025;16:1420578. doi:10.3389/fendo.2025.1420578
Save this study and add notes to your research library.
No significant difference in HbA1c attainment rate among groups (P >.05).
Systolic blood pressure was significantly lower in the app groups by -6.5 mmHg (P <.05).
No significant difference in BMI among groups (P >.05).
Evidence network
Understand where this research contributes within the broader evidence network.
This study contributes evidence to Instructional WhatsApp group for diabetes self-care, Telephone Follow-Up, Usual care and Participants' satisfaction evaluation of the APP, Systolic blood pressure, Blood glucose, and 2 more.
This study contributes evidence to
Primary intervention
Instructional WhatsApp group for diabetes self-care
Primary outcomes
Evidence topics
Primary intervention
Intervention and outcome relationships this study adds to the evidence network.
Editorial context
See why this paper is useful beyond its individual results.
Evidence network role
This section describes how the study fits into the current evidence network. It does not determine whether an intervention works on its own.
4
Related topics
5
Evidence pairs
425
Related studies
Evidence topic
Contributes evidence
Evidence topic
Contributes evidence
Evidence topic
Contributes evidence
Evidence topic
Contributes evidence
Core evidence
The primary outcomes reported in this study.
Instructional WhatsApp group for diabetes self-care → Participants' satisfaction evaluation of the APP
Instructional WhatsApp group for diabetes self-care → Participants' satisfaction evaluation of the APP
Evidence profile
Instructional WhatsApp group for diabetes self-care → Systolic blood pressure
Instructional WhatsApp group for diabetes self-care → Systolic blood pressure
Evidence profile
Telephone Follow-Up → Blood glucose
Telephone Follow-Up → Blood glucose
Evidence profile
Usual care → BMI
Usual care → BMI
Evidence profile
Usual care → HbA1c
Usual care → HbA1c
Evidence profile
Create a free account to access effectiveness ratings, evidence strength and depth scores, consistency analysis, and direct links to all supporting studies.
Create a free account to unlock the bias score, detailed effectiveness analysis, and clinical outcomes for this study.
Explore related studies, evidence collections, and research questions.
Relationships organized using the Dediabetes Evidence Intelligence™ framework.
This study contributes to evidence on Instructional WhatsApp group for diabetes self-care and Participants' satisfaction evaluation of the APP, Instructional WhatsApp group for diabetes self-care and Blood Pressure.
This study contributes to the evidence on the following intervention-outcome relationships.
Behavioral & Lifestyle
Behavioral & Lifestyle
Curated evidence collections and hubs this study is part of.
All studies measuring Blood Pressure
Measures Blood Pressure as a key outcome.
All studies on Instructional WhatsApp group for diabetes self-care
Contributes to Instructional WhatsApp group for diabetes self-care evidence base.
All studies measuring Participants' satisfaction evaluation of the APP
Measures Participants' satisfaction evaluation of the APP as a key outcome.
Latest published studies
Published within the last 2 years.
Jump to pre-filtered views in the evidence archive.
1 results
1 results
1 results
1 results
1 results
Generated from the study's connected evidence using Evidence Intelligence™.
Instructional WhatsApp group for diabetes self-care appears to improve Participants' satisfaction evaluation of the APP.
ConsensusScore™: Consistency cannot yet be determined from the available evidence.
Ranked evidence signals
Participants' satisfaction evaluation of the APP
EvidenceScore™ Emerging | EvidenceScore™ 53.0 | strong positive | ConsensusScore™ Unclear | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is based on a single supporting study.
Limitations
Instructional WhatsApp group for diabetes self-care appears to improve Systolic blood pressure.
ConsensusScore™: Consistency cannot yet be determined from the available evidence.
Ranked evidence signals
Systolic blood pressure
EvidenceScore™ Emerging | EvidenceScore™ 53.0 | strong positive | ConsensusScore™ Unclear | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is based on a single supporting study.
Limitations
Current evidence does not show a clear benefit of Usual care for HbA1c.
ConsensusScore™: Results are consistent across studies.
Ranked evidence signals
HbA1c
EvidenceScore™ Emerging | EvidenceScore™ 40.3 | neutral | ConsensusScore™ Consistent | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is based on a single supporting study.
Limitations
Current evidence does not show a clear benefit of Usual care for BMI.
ConsensusScore™: Results are consistent across studies.
Ranked evidence signals
BMI
EvidenceScore™ Limited | EvidenceScore™ 39.6 | neutral | ConsensusScore™ Consistent | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is based on a single supporting study.
Limitations
Next steps
Choose a next path through related evidence topics, archive views, and research summaries.
Follow the topics this study contributes to.
Open broader archive views for this relationship.
Read related research summaries.
Focused on evidence, not advertising.
Your data is always protected.
New studies added every day.
