4.7 Review

Professional continuous glucose monitoring in patients with diabetes mellitus: A systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

DIABETES OBESITY & METABOLISM
卷 25, 期 5, 页码 1301-1310

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/dom.14981

关键词

continuous glucose monitoring; randomized trial; systematic review; type 1 diabetes; type 2 diabetes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of professional continuous glucose monitoring (p-CGM)-based care on glucose control in type 1 and type 2 diabetes patients. The use of p-CGM was found to significantly reduce glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels without increasing hypoglycaemia compared to standard care.
Aim To evaluate the effect on glucose control of professional continuous glucose monitoring (p-CGM)-based care as compared with standard care in the management of patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes.Materials and methods The PubMed database was searched comprehensively to identify prospective or retrospective studies evaluating p-CGM as a diagnostic tool for subsequent implementation of lifestyle and/or medication changes and reporting glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) as an outcome measure.Results We found 872 articles, 22 of which were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, the use of p-CGM was associated with greater HbA1c reduction from baseline (-0.28%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.36% to -0.21%, I-2 = 0%, P < 0.00001) than usual care, irrespective of type of diabetes, length of follow-up, frequency of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) use and duration of CGM recording. In the few studies describing CGM-derived glucose metrics, p-CGM showed a beneficial effect on change in time in range from baseline (5.59%, 95% CI 0.12 to 11.06, I-2 = 0%, P = 0.05) and a neutral effect on change in time below the target range from baseline (-0.11%, 95% CI -1.76% to 1.55%, I-2 = 33%, P = 0.90).Conclusions 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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据