Effects of continuous glucose monitoring on glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and network meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials
Pooled result · HbA1cResult — go to the resultMD −0.31 95% CI −0.45 to −0.18Authors' conclusion
CGM could provide T2DM with greater benefits in glycaemic management compared with SMBG, particularly in patients using real-time CGM. These findings provide an updated perspective on previous research and offer guidance for CGM use in T2DM.
Study context
- Population
- Outpatients with T2DM; RCTs from 1 January 2000 until 31 December 2022 (PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, OVID)
- Participants
- 1,425 outpatients11 studies
- Comparison
- Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) vs self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG)
- Outcome
- Glycated haemoglobin
Methodological detailstraditional and network meta-analyses
- Traditional and network meta-analyses
Pooled result
HbA1c
MD
−0.31
95% CI −0.45 to −0.18
CGMvs SMBG
MD −0.31 (95% CI −0.45 to −0.18)
As reported in the abstract
Further pooled results
| Outcome | MD (%) (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| TAR | −9.06 (−16.00 to −2.11) | |
| TBR | −0.30 (−0.49 to −0.12) | |
| TIR | 8.49 (3.96–13.02) | |
| −20−1001020Difference, % (linear scale) |
Network meta-analysis
- rtCGM can improve glycaemic control of patients with T2DM to the most extent
Original publication
Effects of continuous glucose monitoring on glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and network meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials. Diabetes Obes Metab. Published 12 October 2023. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →