ReviewCureus2026
Clinical Efficacy and Patient Adherence Hurdles of Remote Patient Monitoring (RPM) Frameworks in Managing Hypertension and Type 2 Diabetes: A Scoping Review.
Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Remote patient monitoring (RPM) frameworks represent a critical paradigm shift in chronic disease management, enabling continuous physiological tracking outside traditional clinical environments; however, large-scale clinical deployment is frequently bottlenecked by operational attrition, patient compliance barriers, and therapeutic provider inertia. This scoping review maps the global evidence regarding the technical configurations, data integration architectures, and human factor friction points that dictate the implementation efficacy of RPM platforms for hypertension and type 2 diabetes. Adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) consensus standards, a systematic search was executed across PubMed, Embase, and Scopus, utilizing a hybrid data extraction approach combining manual triage with a local, regular expression-driven text-mining pipeline to chart a final corpus of 400 full-text peer-reviewed source publications, yielding 701 distinct technical and operational evaluation entries. The comprehensive data charting pipeline mapped exactly 701 unique architectural and behavioral evaluation layers across the included literature. Quantitative synthesis indicated that automated upper-arm oscillometric blood pressure cuffs constituted the primary remote monitoring hardware (32.8%; n=230), while continuous glucose monitors/glucometers and wearable sensors demonstrated symmetrical distributions (11.1%; n=78 each). Ingestion architectures heavily favored automated, passive cloud-native uplinks (43.2%; n=303) over short-range active Bluetooth middleware pairing (19.4%; n=136). Implementation barrier cross-tabulation revealed that clinical workflow friction and daily routine disruption constituted the single most prevalent deployment bottleneck (27.1%; n=190). Patient-centric human factors included digital health literacy gaps (15%; n=105) and technology anxiety or alert fatigue (9.3%; n=65), while systemic provider therapeutic inertia was documented in 8.4% (n=59) of settings. Bivariate co-occurrence analysis established that operational workflow friction frequently compounded alongside digital literacy deficiencies (n=10) and clinical inertia (n=7). Ultimately, RPM deployment longevity is directly governed by technical architecture selections and the optimization of downstream clinician workflows. To minimize patient attrition and avoid technical debt, future health informatics implementations must move past isolated device deployments, prioritizing semantic interoperability via Health Level Seven (HL7) Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) standards.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.