Study | Clinical significance of findings | Clinical relevance |
---|---|---|
Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) | ||
 Clements & Staggs (2017) [21] | Positive link found but 1/3 did not use app so it is likely that individuals who often SMBG use the app rather than the app encouraging more SMBG. Factor of increase (2.3) reported but exact figures not given so difficult to interpret i.e. could be increase from 1 to 2.3 which would impact very little or 3 to 6.9 which would impact a great deal | Likely low |
 Harris et al. (2015) [16] | 25-item measure but does not give any measure of frequency and so impossible to say | Unclear |
 Mulvaney et al. (2012) [26] | 1/3 of the cohort sent through no data, percentage of missed blood glucose tests reported but actual frequency of SMBG not given and there is very high variability between the groups i.e. some participants missed very few and some missed almost all tests thus for some findings could be clinically meaningful but not for others | Unclear |
 Rachmiel et al. (2015) [25] | Difference between continuous and intermittent users expected to have clinical significancethough would also lead to concomitant increase in discomfort from testing | Likely high |
 Raiff et al. (2016) [13] | An increase of 2 to 4 tests per day would be expected to result in clinical improvements | Likely some |
Frequency of SMBG and insulin administration behaviour | ||
 Giani et al. (2016) [23] | Improvements found amongst those who monitored regularly at the beginning of the study but not those who initially monitored poorly. This suggests the intervention was effective but only for those who did not need it | Likely low |
 Schiaffini et al. (2016) [14] | Can be assumed that the intervention increased SMBG and insulin administration to a degree that would be clinically significant. Unclear whether this is due to the electronic platform or feedback from the clinical team | Likely some |
HbA1c | ||
 Mulvaney et al. (2012b) [39] | Nature of control group (matched historical control) is inappropriate to enable estimation of clinical significance | Unclear |
 Pinsker et al. (2011) [40] | No statistical significance found but demographic characteristics of the two groups are not provided and so it is not clear if groups were matched | None |
 Rami et al. (2006) [36] | No statistical significance reported | None |
HbA1c and self-efficacy | ||
 Franklin et al. (2006) [34] | Improvements only reported in the intensive insulin group suggesting that the technology-based intervention was not primarily responsible for differences | None |
Self-efficacy | ||
 Berndt et al. (2014) [30] | Measure likely taken immediately after receiving information from the clinical team and so probably does not reflect real changes in self-efficacy | Likely low |
 Whittemore et al. (2012) [18] | Intervention appears to have been no more effective than control | Likely low |
Need satisfaction (SDT) | ||
 Henkemans et al. (2017) [42] | Unclear how findings relate to clinical outcomes | Unclear |