Background: Lifestyle interventions have been acknowledged as effective strategies for preventing type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). However, the accessibility of conventional face-to-face interventions is often limited. Digital health intervention has been suggested as a potential solution to overcome the limitation. Despite this, there remains a significant gap in understanding the effectiveness of digital health for individuals with prediabetes, particularly in reducing T2DM incidence and reverting to normoglycemia. Objective: This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of different intervention modes of digital health, face-to-face, and blended interventions, particularly the benefits of digital health intervention, in reducing T2DM incidence and facilitating the reversion to normoglycemia in adults with prediabetes compared to the usual care. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search in 9 electronic databases, namely MEDLINE, Embase, ACP Journal Club, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Clinical Answers, Cochrane Methodology Register, Health Technology Assessment, and NHS Economic Evaluation Database through Ovid, from the inception to October 2024. This review included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that studied the effectiveness of lifestyle interventions in adults with prediabetes. The overall intervention effect was synthesized using a random-effects model. The I² statistic was used to assess heterogeneity across the RCTs. We performed a subgroup analysis to explore the effectiveness of digital health, face-to-face, and blended interventions compared with the control group, which received usual care. Results: From an initial 7868 records retrieved from 9 databases, we identified 54 articles from 31 RCTs. Our analysis showed that face-to-face interventions demonstrated a significant 46% risk reduction in T2DM incidence (risk ratio [RR] 0.54, 95% CI 0.47-0.63; I²=43%; P<.001), and a 46% increase in the reversion to normoglycemia (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.11-1.91; I²=82%; P=.006), when compared with the control group. On the other hand, digital health interventions, compared with the control group, were associated with a 12% risk reduction in T2DM incidence (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.77-1.01; I²=0.6%; P=.06). Moreover, the blended interventions combining digital and face-to-face interventions suggested a 37% risk reduction in T2DM incidence (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.49-0.81;I²<0.01%; P<.001) and an 87% increase in the reversion to normoglycemia (RR 1.87, 95% CI 1.30-2.69; I²=23%; P=.001). However, no significant effect on the reversal of prediabetes to normoglycemia was observed from the digital health interventions. Conclusions: Face-to-face interventions have consistently demonstrated promising effectiveness in both reductions in T2DM incidence and reversion to normoglycemia in adults with prediabetes. However, the effectiveness of digital health interventions in these areas has not been sufficiently proven. Given these results, further research is required to provide more definitive evidence of digital health and blended interventions in T2DM prevention in the future. Trial registration: PROSPERO CRD42023414313; https://tinyurl.com/55ac4j4n.

Background: Conflicts of interest (COIs) of contributors to a guideline project and the funding of that project can influence the development of the guideline. Comprehensive reporting of information on COIs and funding is essential for the transparency and credibility of guidelines. Objective: To develop an extension of the Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealThcare (RIGHT) statement for the reporting of COIs and funding in policy documents of guideline organizations and in guidelines: the RIGHT-COI&F checklist. Design: The recommendations of the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) network were followed. The process consisted of registration of the project and setting up working groups, generation of the initial list of items, achieving consensus on the items, and formulating and testing the final checklist. Setting: International collaboration. Participants: 44 experts. Measurements: Consensus on checklist items. Results: The checklist contains 27 items: 18 about the COIs of contributors and 9 about the funding of the guideline project. Of the 27 items, 16 are labeled as policy related because they address the reporting of COI and funding policies that apply across an organization's guideline projects. These items should be described ideally in the organization's policy documents, otherwise in the specific guideline. The remaining 11 items are labeled as implementation related and they address the reporting of COIs and funding of the specific guideline. Limitation: The RIGHT-COI&F checklist requires testing in real-life use. Conclusion: The RIGHT-COI&F checklist can be used to guide the reporting of COIs and funding in guideline development and to assess the completeness of reporting in published guidelines and policy documents. Primary Funding Source: The Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China.