Remote endocrinology support may strengthen diabetes management in primary care, but the clinical effectiveness of clinician-directed models remains uncertain.This systematic review evaluated randomized trials of structured remote endocrinology support for primary care clinicians managing adults with type 2 diabetes.PubMed/MEDLINE, Europe PMC, and ClinicalTrials.govwere searched through September 29, 2026, supplemented by citation searching.Eligible interventions included electronic consultations, videobased case conferencing, and specialist-led telementoring.Findings were synthesized narratively because of clinical and methodological heterogeneity.Five cluster-randomized trials, including one modified steppedwedge trial, met eligibility criteria.The clearest favorable findings concerned prescribing: in one trial, guideline-concordant glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist and/or sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor use was higher in eligible patients with ischemic heart disease (65.2% vs. 47.6%;difference, 17.6 percentage points; 95% CI, 4.6 to 30.7), whereas glycated hemoglobin target attainment was similar (83.2% vs. 80.9%; p = 0.28).Another trial reported greater prescribing increases in a post-randomization matchedcohort analysis (19.3 vs. 6.9 percentage points).Across trials, comparative glycemic and cardiometabolic outcomes showed no consistent improvement.Favorable glycemic findings from telementoring relied on pre-post comparisons rather than randomized treatment-effect estimates.Specialist recommendation uptake was incomplete.Among four results assessed with Risk of Bias 2, three raised some concerns, and one was at high risk of bias; safety reporting was limited.Remote endocrinology support may improve selected prescribing practices, but its effects on clinical outcomes remain uncertain.Larger, rigorous randomized trials evaluating clinical outcomes, implementation, and safety are needed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alshehri et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: