Comparative effectiveness of glucose monitoring methods and glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes: An umbrella review
Authors' conclusion
These findings support glucose monitoring for optimizing glycaemic management and outcomes.
Study context
- Population
- Adults with T2D in RCTs (systematic reviews searched in MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, Scopus, January 2014 to May 2025)15 reviews
- Participants
- 23,657 adults81 studies
- Comparison
- Self-monitoring blood glucose (SMBG) vs no monitoring; Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) vs SMBG
- Primary endpoint
- HbA1c (glycaemic control)
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
HbA1c
MD, % (95% CI)
SMBGvs No monitoringI2 = 21%
−0.23(−0.29 to −0.18)
CGMvs SMBGI2 = 0%
−0.29(−0.34 to −0.24)
Further findings
| Outcome | MD (%) (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| HbA1c, CGM type subgroupsisCGM/FGMvs SMBG | −0.27 (−0.43 to −0.11) | |
| HbA1c, CGM type subgroupsrtCGMvs SMBG | −0.36 (−0.45 to −0.27) | |
| −0.6−0.4−0.200.2Difference, % (linear scale) |
HbA1c, SMBG subgroups (follow-up duration, monitoring structure, study quality)
- Consistent benefits across subgroups, although heterogeneity was high in some comparisons
Original publication
Comparative effectiveness of glucose monitoring methods and glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes: An umbrella review. Diabetes Obes Metab. Published 28 December 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →