Professional continuous glucose monitoring in patients with diabetes mellitus: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Pooled result · HbA1c reduction from baselineResult — go to the resultDifference −0.28 % 95% CI −0.36% to −0.21%Authors' conclusion
In patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, p-CGM-driven care is superior to usual care in improving glucose control without increasing hypoglycaemia.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with T1D and T2D22 studies
- Comparison
- Professional continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-based care vs usual care
- Outcome
- HbA1c reduction from baseline
Methodological detailsprospective or retrospective studies, PubMed search
- Prospective or retrospective studies
- PubMed search
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
Difference
−0.28 %
95% CI −0.36% to −0.21%
P < 0.00001
p-CGMvs Usual care
difference −0.28 % (95% CI −0.36% to −0.21%); P < 0.00001
Further pooled results
| Outcome | Difference (%) (95% CI) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Change in TIR from baselineBeneficial effect; I2 = 0% · few studies | 5.59 (0.12–11.06) | P = 0.05 | |
| Change in TBR from baselineNeutral effect; I2 = 33% · few studies | −0.11 (−1.76% to 1.55%) | P = 0.90 | |
| −5051015Difference, % (linear scale) |
Original publication
Professional continuous glucose monitoring in patients with diabetes mellitus: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Diabetes Obes Metab. Published 14 February 2023. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →