Table 2 |
|||||||||||
|
Mean HbA1c Improvements across groups, study length and quality in Randomised Control Trials |
|||||||||||
|
Study |
Intervention group Mean |
Comparison group 1 Mean |
Comparison group 2 Mean |
Study length |
Quality score |
||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Before |
After |
Diff. |
Before |
After |
Diff. |
Before |
After |
Diff. |
Months |
(0-28) |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Text messages |
|||||||||||
|
Rami 2006 [39] |
9.1 |
9.2 |
0.1 |
9.3 |
8.85 |
-0.45* |
6 |
12 |
|||
|
Franklin 2006 [42]‡‡ |
10.0 |
9.2 |
-0.8* |
10.1 |
10.3 |
0.2 |
9.8 |
10.1 |
0.3 |
12 |
19 |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Telephone support |
|||||||||||
|
Howells 2002 [44] |
8.4 |
8.7† |
0.3 |
8.9 |
9.5† |
0.6* |
8.5 |
8.8* |
0.3 |
12 |
22 |
|
Nunn 2006 [46] |
8.15 |
8.85 |
0.7* |
8.32 |
8.82 |
0.5* |
- |
- |
7 |
20 |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Novel electronic communication |
|||||||||||
|
Chase 2003 [40] |
9.0 |
8.6 |
-0.4 |
8.9 |
8.6 |
-0.3 |
- |
- |
6 |
15 |
|
|
Farmer 2005 [41] |
9.2 |
8.6 |
-0.6* |
9.3 |
8.9 |
-0.4* |
- |
- |
9 |
25 |
|
|
Cadario 2007 [48] |
9.5 |
8.8 |
-0.7* |
9.1 |
9.1‡ |
0 |
- |
- |
18 |
15 |
|
|
Gay 2006 [43] |
9.22 |
9.12 |
-0.1 |
9.17 |
9.27 |
0.1 |
- |
- |
6 |
18 |
|
|
Marrero 1995 [45] |
9.4 |
10 |
0.6* |
9.9 |
10.3 |
0.4* |
- |
- |
12 |
16 |
|
|
Rosenflack 1993 [47] ** |
10.3 |
8.9 |
-1.4* |
9.3 |
9.3 |
0 |
9.8 |
9.6 |
-0.2 |
12 |
15 |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
‡‡ Significant difference between HbA1c levels for intervention group compared to comparison group 1 (p < .001) ‡ Comparison group was given intervention after 6 months due to the significant decline in HbA1c at 3 and 6 months compared to intervention group (p = .03) * Significant change between before and after HbA1c level (p < .05) ** Significant difference between groups at end of study (p < .01) † Approximation based on information provided in tables, true mean HbA1c (%) results not reported |
|||||||||||
|
Sutcliffe et al. BMC Endocrine Disorders 2011 11:1 doi:10.1186/1472-6823-11-1 |
|||||||||||