4.7 Article

Telemonitoring in fasting individuals with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus during Ramadan: A prospective, randomised controlled study

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 7, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-10564-y

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, Malaysia [03-02-10-SF0238(MOSTI)]
  2. Tropical Medicine and Biology platform, Monash University Malaysia [52140757-314-00]
  3. SEGi University Research Fund [SEGi/2013/SKK/04/1]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We determined the impact of a remote blood glucose telemonitoring program with feedback in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients fasting during Ramadan compared to conventional self-monitoring method. A twelve-week cluster randomised study, with 85 participants who wish to fast for at least 15 days during Ramadan was conducted. Self-measurement and transmission of blood glucose results were performed six times daily during Ramadan. Results were transmitted to a secure website for review with feedback from case manager if necessary. The control group received usual care. The main outcome was the number of participants experiencing hypoglycaemia during Ramadan and at the end of the study. During Ramadan, the number of participants reporting hypoglycaemia was significantly lower in the telemonitoring group [Odds ratio (OR): 0.186, 95% confidence interval: 0.04-0.936; p = 0.04]. Similarly, the proportion of participants reporting symptomatic hypoglycaemia at the end of the study was significantly lower in the telemonitoring group (OR: 0.257, 95% CI: 0.07-0.89; p = 0.03). A reduction of 1.07% in glycated haemoglobin levels was observed in the telemonitoring group compared to 0.24% in the control group (p < 0.01). Overall, telemonitoring was a useful adjunct to reduce the risk of hypoglycaemia during Ramadan with no deterioration in glycaemic control

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available