The primary objective of this review was to determine the strength of evidence for the effectiveness of self-monitoring devices and technologies for individuals with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) based on specific health-related outcome measures. Self-monitoring devices included those that assist patients with managing diabetes and preventing cardiovascular complications (CVCs). A secondary objective was to explore issues of feasibility, usability, and compliance among patients and providers.
Methods:
Study criteria included individuals ≥14 years and youth (7–14 years) with T1DM or T2DM, intervention with a self-monitoring device, assessment of clinical outcomes with the device, literature in English, and ≥10 participants. Relevant published literature was searched from 1985 to 2008. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies were included. Data were extracted for clinical outcomes, feasibility and compliance methods, and results. Selected studies were independently evaluated with a validated instrument for assessing methodological quality.
Results:
Eighteen trials were selected. Predominant types of device interventions included self-monitoring of blood glucose, pedometers, and cell phone or wireless technologies. Feasibility and compliance were measured in the majority of studies.
Conclusions:
Self-monitoring of blood glucose continues to be an effective tool for the management of diabetes. Wireless technologies can improve diabetes self-care, and pedometers are effective lifestyle modification tools. The results of this review indicate a need for additional controlled trial research on existing and novel technologies for diabetes self-monitoring, on health outcomes associated with diabetes and CVCs, and device feasibility and compliance.
WildSRoglicGGreenASicreeRKingH.Global prevalence of diabetes: estimates for the year 2000 and projections for 2030. Diabetes Care.2004;27 (5): 1047–53.
2.
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases National Diabetes Statistics, 2007 fact sheet. Bethesda, MD. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, 2008. See: http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/DM/PUBS/statistics/. Accessed October 28, 2009.
3.
OhinmaaAJacobsPSimpsonSJohnsonJAThe projection of prevalence and cost of diabetes in Canada: 2000 to 2016. Can J Diabetes.2004;28 (2): 1–5.
4.
Canadian Diabetes Association Clinical Practice Guidelines Expert Committee Canadian Diabetes Association 2008 clinical practice guidelines for the prevention and management of diabetes in Canada. Can J Diabetes.2008;32 (Suppl 1): S1–201.
5.
American Diabetes Association Standards of medical care for patients with diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care.2003;26 (Suppl 1): S33–50.
6.
CosterSGullifordMCSeedPTPowrieJKSwaminathanRMonitoring blood glucose control in diabetes mellitus: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess.2000;4 (12): i–iv, 1–93.
7.
StrattonIMAdlerAINeilHAMatthewsDRManleySECullCAHaddenDTurnerRCHolmanRRAssociation of glycaemia with macrovascular and microvascular complications of type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 35): prospective observational study. BMJ.2000;321 (7258): 405–12.
8.
UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group Tight blood pressure control and risk of macrovascular and microvascular complications in type 2 diabetes UKPDS 38. BMJ.1998;317 (7160): 703–13.
9.
Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group Effect of intensive diabetes treatment on the development and progression of long-term complications in adolescents with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus: Diabetes Control and Complications Trial. J Pediatr.1994;125 (2): 177–88.
10.
WingRRWeight loss in the management of type 2 diabetes. In: GersteinHCHaynesRB, eds. Evidence-based diabetes care. BC Decker: Hamilton; 2001. 252–76.
11.
KavookjianJElswickBMWhetselTInterventions for being active among individuals with diabetes: a systematic review of the literature. Diabetes Educ.2007;33 (6): 962–88.
12.
LorigKRSobelDSRitterPLLaurentDHobbsMEffect of a self-management program in patients with chronic disease. Eff Clin Pract.2001;4 (6): 256–62.
13.
ClarkNMManagement of chronic disease by patients. Annu Rev Public Health.2003;24: 289–313.
14.
DownsSHBlackNThe feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Comm Health.1998;52 (6): 377–84.
JutaiJStrongJGRussell-MindaEEffectiveness of assistive technologies for low vision rehabilitation: A systematic review. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness2009;103 (4): 210–222.
19.
TeasellRFoleyNSalterKBhogalSKJutaiJSpeechleyMREvidence-based review of stroke rehabilitation. London, Ontario Canada. See: http://www.ebrsr.com/. Accessed October 28, 2009.
20.
FoleyNCTeasellRWBhogalSKSpeechleyMRStroke rehabilitation evidence-based review: methodology. Top Stroke Rehabil.2003;10 (1): 1–7.
21.
GreshamGEDuncanPWStatsonWBPoststroke Rehabilitation Guideline Panel. Clinical practice guideline no. 16. Rockville, MD. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research; 1995. AHCPR Publication No. 95–0662.
22.
FaasASchellevisFGVan EijkJTThe efficacy of self-monitoring of blood glucose in NIDDM subjects. A criteria-based literature review. Diabetes Care.1997;20 (9): 1482–6.
23.
CosterSGullifordMCSeedPTPowrieJKSwaminathanRSelf-monitoring in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis. Diabet Med.2000;17 (11): 755–61.
24.
WelschenLMBloemendalENijpelsGDekkerJMHeineRJStalmanWABouterLMSelf-monitoring of blood glucose in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who are not using insulin. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.2005;(2):CD005060.
25.
FarmerAWadeAGoyderEYudkinPFrenchDCravenAHolmanRKinmonthALNeilAImpact of self monitoring of blood glucose in the management of patients with non-insulin treated diabetes: open parallel group randomised trial. BMJ.2007;335 (7611): 132.
26.
DavidsonMBCastellanosMKainDDuranPThe effect of self monitoring of blood glucose concentrations on glycated hemoglobin levels in diabetic patients not taking insulin: a blinded, randomized trial. Am J Med.2005;118 (4): 422–5.
27.
FontbonneABillaultBAcostaMPercheronCVarennePBesseAEschwegeEMonnierLSlamaGPassaPIs glucose self-monitoring beneficial in non-insulin-treated diabetic patients? Results of a randomized comparative trial. Diabetes Metab.1989;15 (5): 255–60.
28.
GuerciBDrouinPGrangeVBougnèresPFontainePKerlanVPassaPThivoletChVialettesBCharbonnelB, ASIA GroupSelf-monitoring of blood glucose significantly improves metabolic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: the Auto-Surveillance Intervention Active (ASIA) study. Diabetes Metab.2003;29 (6): 587–94.
29.
AllenBTDeLongERFeussnerJRImpact of glucose self-monitoring on non-insulin-treated patients with type II diabetes mellitus. Randomized controlled trial comparing blood and urine testing. Diabetes Care.1990;13 (10): 1044–50.
30.
BouléNGHaddadEKennyGPWellsGASigalRJEffects of exercise on glycemic control and body mass in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials. JAMA.2001;286 (10): 1218–27.
31.
SchneiderSHAmorosaLFKhachadurianAKRudermanNBStudies on the mechanism of improved glucose control during regular exercise in type 2 (non-insulin-dependent) diabetes. Diabetologia.1984;26 (5): 355–60.
32.
YamanouchiKShinozakiTChikadaKNishikawaTItoKShimizuSOzawaNSuzukiYMaenoHKatoKDaily walking combined with diet therapy is a useful means for obese NIDDM patients not only to reduce body weight but also to improve insulin sensitivity. Diabetes Care.1995;18 (6): 775–8.
33.
BravataDMSmith-SpanglerCSundaramVGiengerALLinNLewisRStaveCDOlkinISirardJRUsing pedometers to increase physical activity and improve health: a systematic review. JAMA.2007;298 (19): 2296–304.
34.
PateRRPrattMBlairSNHaskellWLMaceraCABouchardCBuchnerDEttingerWHeathGWKingACPhysical activity and public health. A recommendation from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American College of Sports Medicine. JAMA.1995;273 (5): 402–7.
35.
Tudor-LockeCBassettDRJrHow many steps/day are enough? Preliminary pedometer indices for public health. Sports Med.2004;34 (1): 1–8.
36.
Le MasurierGCTudor-LockeCComparison of pedometer and accelerometer accuracy under controlled conditions. Med Sci Sports Exerc.2003;35 (5): 867–71.
37.
Tudor-LockeCBellRCMyersAMHarrisSBEcclestoneNALauzonNRodgerNWControlled outcome evaluation of the First Step Program: a daily physical activity intervention for individuals with type II diabetes. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord.2004;28 (1): 113–9.
38.
RichardsonCRMehariKSMcIntyreLGJanneyAWFortlageLASenAStrecherVJPietteJDA randomized trial comparing structured and lifestyle goals in an internet-mediated walking program for people with type 2 diabetes. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act.2007;4: 59.
39.
PaschaliAAGoodrickGKKalantzi-AziziAPapadatouDBalasubramanyamAAccelerometer feedback to promote physical activity in adults with type 2 diabetes: a pilot study. Percept Mot Skills.2005;100 (1): 61–8.
40.
BjørgaasMRVikJTStølenTLydersenSGrillVRegular use of pedometer does not enhance beneficial outcomes in a physical activity intervention study in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Metabolism.2008;57 (5): 605–11.
41.
AraizaPHewesHGashetewaCVellaCABurgeMREfficacy of a pedometer-based physical activity program on parameters of diabetes control in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Metabolism.2006;55 (10): 1382–7.
42.
AlbrightCLPruittLCastroCGonzalezAWooSKingACModifying physical activity in a multiethnic sample of low-income women: one-year results from the IMPACT (Increasing Motivation for Physical ACTivity) project. Ann Behav Med.2005;30 (3): 191–200.
43.
KrishnaSBorenSADiabetes self-management care via cell phone: a systematic review. J Diabetes Sci Technol.2008;2 (3): 509–17.
44.
FaridiZLibertiLShuvalKNorthrupVAliAKatzDLEvaluating the impact of mobile telephone technology on type 2 diabetic patients' self-management: the NICHE pilot study. J Eval Clin Pract.2008;14 (3): 465–9.
45.
KimHSJeongHSA nurse short message service by cellular phone in type-2 diabetic patients for six months. J Clin Nurs.2007;16 (6): 1082–7.
46.
KimSIKimHSEffectiveness of mobile and internet intervention in patients with obese type 2 diabetes. Int J Med Inform.2008;77 (6): 399–404.
47.
YoonKHKimHSA short message service by cellular phone in type 2 diabetic patients for 12 months. Diabetes Res Clin Pract.2008;79 (2): 256–61.
48.
Hee-SungKImpact of Web-based nurse's education on glycosylated haemoglobin in type 2 diabetic patients. J Clin Nurs.2007;16 (7): 1361–6.
49.
FranklinVLWallerAPagliariCGreeneSAA randomized controlled trial of Sweet Talk, a text-messaging system to support young people with diabetes. Diabet Med.2006;23 (12): 1332–8.
50.
BenhamouPYMelkiVBoizelRPerrealFQuesadaJLBessieres-LacombeSBossonJLHalimiSHanaireHOne-year efficacy and safety of Web-based follow-up using cellular phone in type 1 diabetic patients under insulin pump therapy: the PumpNet study. Diabetes Metab.2007;33 (3): 220–6.
51.
LeuMGNorrisTEHummelJIsaacMBroganMWA randomized, controlled trial of an automated wireless messaging system for diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther.2005;7 (5): 710–8.
52.
KumarVSWentzellKJMikkelsenTPentlandALaffelLMThe DAILY (Daily Automated Intensive Log for Youth) trial: a wireless, portable system to improve adherence and glycemic control in youth with diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther.2004;6 (4): 445–53.
53.
QuinnCCCloughSSMinorJMLenderDOkaforMCGruber-BaldiniAWellDoc mobile diabetes management randomized controlled trial: change in clinical and behavioral outcomes and patient and physician satisfaction. Diabetes Technol Ther.2008;10 (3): 160–8.
54.
HuangESMeigsJBSingerDEThe effect of interventions to prevent cardiovascular disease in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Am J Med.2001;111 (8): 633–42.
55.
Nazimek-SiewniakBMoczulskiDGrzeszczakWRisk of macrovascular and microvascular complications in type 2 diabetes: results of longitudinal study design. J Diabetes Complications.2002;16 (4): 271–6.
56.
Institute of Health Economics Consensus Statements Consensus statement on self-monitoring in diabetes. 2006;1 (1): 1–18.
