Diabetes self‐management education and support delivered by mobile health (m‐health) interventions for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus
Appendices
Appendix 1. Search strategies
| MEDLINE (Ovid SP) |
| Part I. Population 1. exp Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/ 2. (MODY or NIDDM or T2D*).tw. 3. diabet*.tw. 4. or/1‐3 Part II. Intervention 5. Cell Phones/ 6. Text Messaging/ 7. Smartphone/ 8. Mobile Applications/ 9. (mHealth or "m health").tw. 10. (telehealth or telecare).tw. 11. (eHealth or "e health").tw. 12. digital health.tw. 13. (mobile adj (phone* or technolog* or app or apps or application* or communic* or health)).tw. 14. smartphone?.tw. 15. ((cell* or smart) adj phone?).tw. 16. messaging.tw. 17. texting.tw. 18. ((text or short) adj messag*).tw. 19. SMS.tw. 20. (health adj (app or apps or application)).tw. 21. or/5‐20 Part I.+II. 22. 4 and 21 Part III. Cochrane RCT Filter (sensitivity max.) 23. randomized controlled trial.pt. 24. controlled clinical trial.pt. 25. randomi?ed.ab. 26. placebo.ab. 27. drug therapy.fs. 28. randomly.ab. 29. trial.ab. 30. groups.ab. 31. or/23‐30 32. exp animals/ not humans/ 33. 31 not 32 Part IV: Wong 2006systematic reviews filter 34. meta analysis.mp,pt. or review.pt. or search*.tw. Part I, II, III and IV and limit to 1995 onwards 35. 22 and 33 36. 22 and 34 37. 35 or 36 38. limit 37 to yr="2000 ‐Current" 39. remove duplicates from 38 |
Appendix 2. Selection bias decisions
| Selection bias decisions for trials that reported unadjusted analyses: comparison of results obtained using method details alone with results using method details and trial baseline informationa | |||
| Reported randomisation and allocation concealment methods | Risk of bias judgement using methods reporting | Information gained from study characteristics data | Risk of bias using baseline information and methods reporting |
| Unclear methods | Unclear risk | Baseline imbalances present for important prognostic variable(s) | High risk |
| Groups appear similar at baseline for all important prognostic variables | Low risk | ||
| Limited or no baseline details | Unclear risk | ||
| Would generate a truly random sample, with robust allocation concealment | Low risk | Baseline imbalances present for important prognostic variable(s) | Unclear riskb |
| Groups appear similar at baseline for all important prognostic variables | Low risk | ||
| Limited baseline details, showing balance in some important prognostic variablesc | Low risk | ||
| No baseline details | Unclear risk | ||
| Sequence is not truly randomised, or allocation concealment is inadequate | High risk | Baseline imbalances present for important prognostic variable(s) | High risk |
| Groups appear similar at baseline for all important prognostic variables | Low risk | ||
| Limited baseline details, showing balance in some important prognostic variablesc | Unclear risk | ||
| No baseline details | High risk | ||
| aTaken from Corbett 2014; judgments highlighted in bold indicate situations in which the addition of baseline assessments would change the judgement about risk of selection bias, compared with using methods reporting alone. | |||
Conceptual framework of how the intervention might work
FPG: fasting plasma glucose; HbA1c: glycosylated haemoglobin.
