Last updated August 16, 2026
Key finding
The primary endpoint is a win-ratio of hierarchical events, including all-cause deaths.
This study evaluated a remote chronic disease management program for cardiometabolic disease in low- and middle-income countries, comparing it to usual care.
Quick read
The essential study design details in one scan.
EvidenceScore™
Moderate
Study type
RCTs
Follow-up
Medium-Term (3–12 mo)
Risk of bias
Some Concerns
Save research, organize studies, and quickly find important evidence again.
Plain-language summary
A plain-language read of the study’s main message and where it applies.
Study focus
This study evaluated a remote chronic disease management program for cardiometabolic disease in low- and middle-income countries, comparing it to usual care.
Understanding the effectiveness of remote management programs is crucial, especially in low- and middle-income countries where healthcare resources may be limited. This study's findings can inform future healthcare strategies and resource allocation for managing cardiometabolic diseases.
Effectiveness data were unclear across all measured outcomes. The study may have limited generalizability to other populations. Potential unmeasured confounders could influence results.
Published in
Publication details and source links for this paper.
Renato DCB, Andrea S, José ABF, et al. Remote Chronic Disease Management Program for Cardiometabolic Disease in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. 2026;32:e70456. doi:10.1111/jep.70456
Unclear effectiveness regarding all-cause deaths.
Unclear effectiveness regarding all-cause hospitalizations.
Unclear effectiveness in controlling HbA1c levels.
Unclear effectiveness in controlling LDL-C levels.
Evidence network
Understand where this research contributes within the broader evidence network.
This study contributes evidence to Structured multidisciplinary case management and All-cause mortality, Clinical parameters including blood pressure, glycemic control, and LDL cholesterol levels, Control of blood pressure below 140/80 mm Hg, and 4 more.
This study contributes evidence to
Primary intervention
Structured multidisciplinary case management
Primary outcomes
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.
3
Related topics
7
Evidence pairs
468
Related studies
Evidence topic
Contributes evidence
Evidence topic
Contributes evidence
Evidence topic
Contributes evidence
Save studies and evidence pages, organize your personal Evidence Tracker, and keep the research you care about in one place.
Primary evidence
Evidence relationship
Related evidence
Evidence relationship
Save evidence
Evidence relationship
Save evidence
Core evidence
The primary outcomes reported in this study.
Structured multidisciplinary case management → All-cause mortality
Structured multidisciplinary case management → All-cause mortality
Structured multidisciplinary case management → Clinical parameters including blood pressure, glycemic control, and LDL cholesterol levels
Structured multidisciplinary case management → Clinical parameters including blood pressure, glycemic control, and LDL cholesterol levels
Structured multidisciplinary case management → Control of blood pressure below 140/80 mm Hg
Structured multidisciplinary case management → Control of blood pressure below 140/80 mm Hg
Structured multidisciplinary case management → HbA1c
Structured multidisciplinary case management → HbA1c
Structured multidisciplinary case management → Hospitalizations
Structured multidisciplinary case management → Hospitalizations
Structured multidisciplinary case management → LDL cholesterol
Structured multidisciplinary case management → LDL cholesterol
Structured multidisciplinary case management → Patient-reported outcomes
Structured multidisciplinary case management → Patient-reported outcomes
Evidence Library
Save research, organize studies, and quickly find important evidence again.
Evidence Library
Save research, organize studies, and quickly find important evidence again.
Explore related studies, evidence collections, and research questions.
Relationships organized using the Dediabetes Evidence Intelligence™ framework.
This study contributes to evidence on Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support (DSMES) Programs and HbA1c.
This study contributes to the evidence on the following intervention-outcome relationships.
Behavioral & Lifestyle
Curated evidence collections and hubs this study is part of.
All studies on Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support (DSMES) Programs
Contributes to Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support (DSMES) Programs evidence base.
All studies measuring HbA1c
Measures HbA1c as a key outcome.
Latest published studies
Published within the last 2 years.
Jump to pre-filtered views in Evidence Explorer.
3 results
3 results
3 results
Generated from the study's connected evidence using Evidence Intelligence™.
Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support (DSMES) Programs may improve HbA1c.
ConsistencyScore™: Results are generally consistent across studies.
Ranked evidence signals
HbA1c
EvidenceScore™ Strong | EvidenceScore™ 79.0 | strong positive | ConsistencyScore™ Consistent | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is based on 33 supporting studies with generally consistent results and a positive effect signal.
Limitations
Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support (DSMES) Programs may improve Adipokine and Angiogenic Markers.
ConsistencyScore™: Results are mixed and should be interpreted cautiously.
Ranked evidence signals
LDL cholesterol
EvidenceScore™ Strong | EvidenceScore™ 85.1 | strong positive | ConsistencyScore™ Unclear | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is cautious because the available studies report mixed findings.
Limitations
Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support (DSMES) Programs may improve Cardiovascular Outcomes.
ConsistencyScore™: Results are generally consistent across studies.
Ranked evidence signals
All-cause mortality
EvidenceScore™ Strong | EvidenceScore™ 79.0 | strong positive | ConsistencyScore™ Unclear | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is based on 3 supporting studies with generally consistent results and a positive effect signal.
Limitations
Structured multidisciplinary case management appears to improve Clinical parameters including blood pressure, glycemic control, and LDL cholesterol levels.
ConsistencyScore™: Consistency cannot yet be determined from the available evidence.
Ranked evidence signals
Clinical parameters including blood pressure, glycemic control, and LDL cholesterol levels
EvidenceScore™ Unknown | strong positive | ConsistencyScore™ Unclear | 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, Evidence Explorer views, and research summaries.
Follow the topics this study contributes to.
Open broader Evidence Explorer views for this relationship.
Read related research summaries.
Focused on evidence, not advertising.
Your data is always protected.
New studies added every day.
