Importance: Telemedicine has been shown to be an efficient and effective means of providing care to patients with chronic disease especially in remote and undeserved regions, by improving access to care and reduce healthcare cost. However, the evidence surrounding its applicability in type 1 diabetes remains scarce and conflicting.Objective: To synthesize evidence and quantify the effectiveness of telemedicine interventions for the management of glycemic and clinical outcomes in type 1 diabetes patients, relative to comparator conditions.Data Sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and CINAHL were searched for published articles since inception until December 2016.Study Selection: Original articles reporting the results of randomized controlled studies on the effectiveness of telemedicine in people with type 1 diabetes were included.Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers independently extracted data, assessed quality, and strength of evidence. Interventions were categorized based upon the telemedicine focus (monitoring, education, consultation, case-management, and peer mentoring).Main Outcome and Measure: Absolute change in glycosylated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) from baseline to follow-up assessment.Results: A total of 38 studies described in 41 articles were identified. Positive effects on glycemic control were noted with studies examining telemedicine, with a mean reduction of 0.18% at the end of intervention. Studies with longer duration (>6 months) who had recruited patients with a higher baseline HbA1c (≥9%) were associated with larger effects. Telemedicine interventions that involve individualized assessments, audit with feedback and skill building were also more effective in improving glycemic control. However, no benefits were observed on blood pressure, lipids, weight, quality of life, and adverse events.Conclusions and Relevance: There is insufficient evidence to support telemedicine use for glycemic control and other clinically relevant outcome among patients with type 1 diabetes.

Benign prostatic hyperplasia is a common non-malignant condition among older men, but the epidemiology is poorly characterised. We summarised and determined the global prevalence of benign prostatic hyperplasia. A systematic search on PubMed, EMBASE and CENTRAL was performed up until 31st July 2016. Studies that described the epidemiology of benign prostatic hyperplasia were included and cumulative plots of prevalence estimates were calculated. A total of 31 prevalence rate estimates from 25 countries were identified. The combined prevalence estimates showed that the lifetime prevalence of BPH was 26.2% (95% CI: 22.8–29.6%). We found that there was an increasing prevalence of BPH with age. However, we found no significant difference between (a) rural, urban or mixed sites, (b) different countries, (c) respondent representativeness. (d) sample size or (e) study quality. We also found no significant change in the prevalence over the past 20 years. While there is substantial variation between sites estimates, results suggest that nearly 1 in 4 men will suffer from BPH over their lifetime. The study revealed there are significant gaps in knowledge, which provides opportunities for future research to further enrich the epidemiological landscape with data.

Emerging epidemiological evidence suggests that patients with glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency may have a higher risk of developing diabetes. The aim of the review was to synthesise the evidence on the association between G6PD deficiency and diabetes. A systematic search on Medline, EMBASE, AMED and CENTRAL databases for studies published between January 1966 and September 2016 that assessed the association between G6PD deficiency and diabetes was conducted. This was supplemented by a review of the reference list of retrieved articles. We extracted data on study characteristics, outcomes and performed an assessment on the methodological quality of the studies. A random-effects model was used to compute the summary risk estimates. Fifteen relevant publications involving 949,260 participants were identified, from which seven studies contributed to the meta-analysis. G6PD deficiency was associated with a higher odd of diabetes (odds ratio 2.37, 95% confidence interval 1.50-3.73). The odds ratio of diabetes among men was higher (2.22, 1.31-3.75) compared to women (1.87, 1.12-3.12). This association was broadly consistent in the sensitivity analysis. Current evidence suggests that G6PD deficiency may be a risk factor for diabetes, with higher odds among men compared to women. Further research is needed to determine how G6PD deficiency moderates diabetes.

Aim To summarize and evaluate the existing evidence on the effectiveness of distal technology with regard to multiple health outcomes in people with diabetes. Methods We searched PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from database inception to 31 August 2018 for systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses of studies that examined the impact of distal technology and reported any clinical or patient-related outcomes among people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Results The umbrella review identified 95 reviews, including 162 meta-analyses with 46 unique outcomes. Evidence from meta-analyses of randomized controlled studies supports the use of distal technology, especially telehealth and mHealth (healthcare delivered by mobile technology), in people with diabetes for improving HbA 1c values by 2-4 mmol/ mol (0.2-0.4%). For other health outcomes, such as changes in fasting plasma glucose levels, risk of diabetic ketoacidosis or frequency of severe hypoglycaemia, the evidence was weaker. No evidence was reported for most patient-reported outcomes including quality of life, self-efficacy and medication-taking. The evidence base was poor, with most studies rated as low to very low quality. Conclusion Distal technologies were associated with a modest improvement in glycaemic control, but it was unclear if they improved major clinical outcomes or were cost-effective in people with diabetes. More robust research to improve wider outcomes in people with diabetes is needed before such technologies can be recommended as part of routine care for any patient group.

No abstract