Research Summary
Analyzed using Evidence Intelligence™

Hybrid telemedicine improves glycemic control in type 1 diabetes

Last updated July 8, 2026

Key finding

A1c levels significantly decreased from 6.9 ± 0.5% at baseline to 6.7 ± 0.5% after 12 months.

This study evaluated a hybrid telemedicine approach for adults with type 1 diabetes against standard clinical practice, finding a significant reduction in HbA1c levels.

Quick read

Study at a glance

The essential study design details in one scan.

EvidenceScore™

Moderate

Study type

RCTs

Follow-up

Long-Term (1–5 y)

Risk of bias

Some Concerns

Save research, organize studies, and quickly find important evidence again.

Plain-language summary

What this paper says

A plain-language read of the study’s main message and where it applies.

Study focus

This study evaluated a hybrid telemedicine approach for adults with type 1 diabetes against standard clinical practice, finding a significant reduction in HbA1c levels.

Clinical relevance

This research highlights the potential of telemedicine in diabetes management, particularly for individuals who may benefit from reduced in-person visits. The significant reduction in HbA1c suggests that such approaches can maintain or improve glycemic control, which is crucial for long-term health in diabetes patients.

Keep in mind

No specific results reported for glycemic variability. Limited information on time below target range. Effectiveness of the hybrid approach remains unclear for some outcomes.

Published in

Journal Reference

Publication details and source links for this paper.

Lía N, Esther DLC, Edurne L, et al. A hybrid telemedicine approach for adults with type 1 diabetes using an advanced closed-loop system: a randomized clinical trial. Therapeutic Advances in Endocrinology and Metabolism. 2024;15:20420188241288789. doi:10.1177/20420188241288789

Main Effects

HbA1c levels decreased from 6.9% to 6.7% after 12 months (p=0.006).

No statistically significant differences in quality of life were found.

No increase in adverse events was reported despite fewer in-person visits.

Evidence network

How this study fits

Understand where this research contributes within the broader evidence network.

Evidence Context

This study contributes evidence to Hybrid closed-loop system and Adverse events incidence, Glucose variability, HbA1c, and 2 more.

Primary intervention

Hybrid closed-loop system

Primary outcomes

  • Adverse events incidence
  • Glucose variability
  • HbA1c

Evidence relationships

Intervention and outcome relationships this study adds to the evidence network.

5
Evidence pairs
5
Relationships
3
Evidence topics
contributes_evidence

Editorial context

Why this study matters

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.

Moderate contributionModerate confidenceNetwork score: 68

3

Related topics

5

Evidence pairs

876

Related studies

High relevance in at least one topic

Why it is useful

  • Contributes to 5 evidence relationships
  • Includes primary outcome data
  • Linked to 3 direct semantic evidence topics

Topic contributions

Evidence topic

Contributes evidence

Evidence topic

Contributes evidence

Evidence topic

Contributes evidence

Add related evidence to your Evidence Tracker

Save studies and evidence pages, organize your personal Evidence Tracker, and keep the research you care about in one place.

Primary evidence

Evidence relationship

Insulin Delivery Systems and CGM Time in Range

Related evidence

Evidence relationship

Insulin Delivery Systems and HbA1c

Save evidence

Evidence relationship

Insulin Delivery Systems and Glucose Variability

Save evidence

Core evidence

Study findings

The primary outcomes reported in this study.

Adverse events incidence

Hybrid closed-loop system → Adverse events incidence

Hybrid closed-loop system → Adverse events incidence

Evidence Intelligence™
EvidenceScore™
Emerging
Score 59 · Based on 1 study
ImpactScore™
50
Neutral
ConsistencyScore™
unclear
Not enough independent studies
Supporting studies: Based on 1 study
Add to Evidence Tracker

Glucose variability

Hybrid closed-loop system → Glucose variability

Hybrid closed-loop system → Glucose variability

Evidence Intelligence™
EvidenceScore™
Strong
Score 79 · Based on 4 studies
ImpactScore™
63
Slightly Positive
ConsistencyScore™
35
mixed
Supporting studies: Based on 4 studies
Add to Evidence Tracker

HbA1c

Hybrid closed-loop system → HbA1c

Hybrid closed-loop system → HbA1c

Evidence Intelligence™
EvidenceScore™
84
Strong
ImpactScore™
100
Very Positive
ConsistencyScore™
100
consistent
Supporting studies: Based on 5 studies
Add to Evidence Tracker

Quality of life

Hybrid closed-loop system → Quality of life

Hybrid closed-loop system → Quality of life

Evidence Intelligence™
EvidenceScore™
Emerging
Score 59 · Based on 1 study
ImpactScore™
50
Neutral
ConsistencyScore™
unclear
Not enough independent studies
Supporting studies: Based on 1 study
Add to Evidence Tracker

Time in range

Hybrid closed-loop system → Time in range

Hybrid closed-loop system → Time in range

Evidence Intelligence™
EvidenceScore™
86
Strong
ImpactScore™
79
Positive
ConsistencyScore™
70
generally_consistent
Supporting studies: Based on 12 studies
Add to Evidence Tracker

Evidence Library

Build your evidence library

Save research, organize studies, and quickly find important evidence again.

evidence suggest

Evidence Suggest

  • HbA1c levels decreased by 0.2% (p=0.006) with the hybrid approach.
  • Quality of life scores showed no significant differences between groups.
  • No increase in adverse events was noted despite reduced in-person visits.
who this applies

Who this applies to

  • Adults with type 1 diabetes.
  • Individuals seeking alternatives to standard clinical practice.
keep in mind

Keep in Mind

  • The study did not measure all relevant outcomes, such as glycemic variability.
  • Findings may not be generalizable to all populations with diabetes.
  • The long-term effectiveness of the hybrid approach remains to be determined.
between the lines

Between the Lines

  • No specific results reported for glycemic variability.
  • Limited information on time below target range.
  • Effectiveness of the hybrid approach remains unclear for some outcomes.

Evidence Library

Build your evidence library

Save research, organize studies, and quickly find important evidence again.

Connected Evidence

Explore related studies, evidence collections, and research questions.

Relationships organized using the Dediabetes Evidence Intelligence™ framework.

This study contributes to evidence on Insulin Delivery Systems and CGM Time in Range, Insulin Delivery Systems and HbA1c.

Related evidence relationships

Explore in Evidence Explorer

This study contributes to the evidence on the following intervention-outcome relationships.

Questions answered by this study

Generated from the study's connected evidence using Evidence Intelligence™.

Does Insulin Delivery Systems improve cgm time in range?

Strong Evidence

Insulin Delivery Systems may improve CGM Time in Range.

ConsistencyScore™: Results are generally consistent across studies.

Ranked evidence signals

  1. 1

    Time in range

    EvidenceScore™ Strong | EvidenceScore™ 86.0 | moderate positive | ConsistencyScore™ Generally Consistent | 1 study

Why this answer: This answer is based on 20 supporting studies with generally consistent results and a positive effect signal.

Limitations

  • Population details are unavailable.
20 supporting studiesUpdated: Aug 2026

Does Insulin Delivery Systems improve HbA1c?

Strong Evidence

Insulin Delivery Systems appears to improve HbA1c.

ConsistencyScore™: Results are consistent across studies.

Ranked evidence signals

  1. 1

    HbA1c

    EvidenceScore™ Strong | EvidenceScore™ 84.2 | strong positive | ConsistencyScore™ Consistent | 1 study

Why this answer: This answer is based on 14 supporting studies with consistent results and a positive effect signal.

Limitations

  • Population details are unavailable.
14 supporting studiesUpdated: Aug 2026

Does Insulin Delivery Systems improve glucose variability?

Strong Evidence

Insulin Delivery Systems may improve Glucose Variability.

ConsistencyScore™: Results are generally consistent across studies.

Ranked evidence signals

  1. 1

    Glucose variability

    EvidenceScore™ Strong | EvidenceScore™ 79.0 | weak positive | ConsistencyScore™ Mixed | 1 study

Why this answer: This answer is based on 6 supporting studies with generally consistent results and a positive effect signal.

Limitations

  • Population details are unavailable.
6 supporting studiesUpdated: Aug 2026

Does Insulin Delivery Systems improve quality of life outcomes?

Strong Evidence

Insulin Delivery Systems may improve Quality of Life Outcomes.

ConsistencyScore™: Results are generally consistent across studies.

Ranked evidence signals

  1. 1

    Quality of life

    EvidenceScore™ Emerging | EvidenceScore™ 59.0 | neutral | ConsistencyScore™ Unclear | 1 study

Why this answer: This answer is based on 5 supporting studies with generally consistent results and a positive effect signal.

Limitations

  • Population details are unavailable.
5 supporting studiesUpdated: Aug 2026
Learn how Evidence Intelligence™ works

Next steps

Continue your research

Choose a next path through related evidence topics, Evidence Explorer views, and research summaries.

No ads. No tracking.

Focused on evidence, not advertising.

Secure & private

Your data is always protected.

Always up to date

New studies added every day.