Abstract
Background: Diabetes mellitus affects almost 20% of the world’s population between 65 and 99 years old. The care for this disease urges a complex, multidisciplinary, and stepwise approach. Telemedicine has been evaluated, and clinical trials as well as systematic reviews have been performed, and most have shown the benefits of its use in DM management. However, as the prevalence of diabetes mellitus increases, as well as the population ages, considerations regarding access and compliance of older patients to such technologies arise.
Objective: The study aimed to determine the efficacy of telemedicine medical consultations in comparison to standard face-to-face consultations.
Methods: A systematic literature search to identify trials investigating the effect of telemedicine medical consultations in clinical-laboratory aspects of DM management was conducted. The search was carried out in electronic databases: Medline, EMBASE, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the CENTRAL Cochrane. Two authors independently assessed the included studies using the proper bias assessment tool for each study design.
Results: In agreement with the eligibility criteria, three studies were included. In terms of the main outcome, HbA1c, only one out of three articles showed a significant difference between the groups, favoring patients in the telemedicine group. With respect to blood pressure, Sood A reported that the usual care group exhibited a greater improvement in systolic blood pressure with statistical differences. All other results displayed no significant statistical difference between the groups. Also, no statistical difference was found in most of the lipid profile results.
Conclusion: Our review shows that teleconsultations do not provide a clear benefit to elderly people with diabetes, but they may be non-inferior.
Keywords: Telemedicine, diabetes mellitus, elderly, systematic review, glycated hemoglobin, blood pressure, body mass index.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cbi.2021.109576] [PMID: 34252406]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejphar.2019.172625] [PMID: 31449807]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.molstruc.2022.132675]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-2836-0]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13300-018-0548-4] [PMID: 30737674]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-5491.2011.03279.x] [PMID: 21388445]
[PMID: 27453739]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.molstruc.2020.129446]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcte.2016.12.001] [PMID: 29067246]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/dc07-2452] [PMID: 18443195]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/dc17-2010] [PMID: 29784698]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0748-z]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2017.03.011] [PMID: 28499961]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/16683] [PMID: 32207694]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2006.0073] [PMID: 17999619]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2018.0128] [PMID: 30124394]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/dia.2014.0341] [PMID: 25692373]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.4093/dmj.2017.41.3.213] [PMID: 28657235]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1357633X16657500] [PMID: 27381040]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2006.05.030] [PMID: 16815741]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1357633X17704346] [PMID: 28406066]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/193229681300700302] [PMID: 23759390]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0126858] [PMID: 25974092]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09448-0] [PMID: 32917171]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0034-7167-2020-0241] [PMID: 33174998]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dsx.2021.06.012] [PMID: 34186374]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.semerg.2021.01.005] [PMID: 33781673]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182212171] [PMID: 34831925]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/19322968211064633] [PMID: 34957864]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/19322968221076874] [PMID: 35135365]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-021-04274-7] [PMID: 34865645]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.746217] [PMID: 35173644]