Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15846742›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2005

Self-monitoring of blood glucose in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who are not using insulin.

L M C Welschen, E Bloemendal, G Nijpels, J M Dekker, R J Heine, W A B Stalman, L M Bouter

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. [Blood glucose self monitoring (Update 2019)].Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2019
    Review
  11. [Blood glucose self monitoring].Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2016
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Type 1 diabetes, cardiovascular complications and sesame ( zhī má).Journal of traditional and complementary medicine · 2014
    Review
  14. Self-monitoring of blood glucose in type 2 diabetes: recent studies.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2013
    Review
  15. [Blood glucose self monitoring].Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2012
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

L M C WelschenInstitute for Research in Extramural Medicine, VU University Medical Center, van der Boechorststraat 7, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 1081 BT. l.welschen@vumc.nl
E Bloemendal
G Nijpels
J M Dekker
R J Heine
W A B Stalman
L M Bouter
Amsterdam UMC Location VUmc · NLUniversity Hospital and Clinics · USUniversity Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSelf-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) has been found to be effective for patients with type 1 diabetes and for patients with type 2 diabetes using insulin. There is much debate on the effectiveness of SMBG as a tool in the self-management for patients with type 2 diabetes who are not using insulin.

objectivesThe objective of this review was to assess the effects of SMBG in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who are not using insulin. SEARCH STRATEGY: Studies were obtained from searches of multiple electronic bibliographic databases supplemented with hand searches of references of retrieved articles. Date of last search: September 2004. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trails investigating the effects of SMBG compared with usual care and/or with self-monitoring of urine glucose in patients with type 2 diabetes who where not using insulin. Included studies should have used at least one of the following outcome measures: glycaemic control, quality of life, well-being, patient satisfaction, or hypoglycaemic episodes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data from included studies and assessed study quality. Data from the studies were compared to decide whether they were sufficiently homogeneous to pool in a meta-analysis. MAIN

resultsSix randomised controlled trials were included in the review. Four trials compared SMBG with usual care, one trial compared SMBG with self-monitoring of urine glucose and there was one three-armed trial comparing SMBG with self-monitoring of urine glucose and usual care. Because of the differences in patient characteristics, interventions and outcomes between the studies, it was not possible to perform a meta-analysis. The methodological quality of studies was low. Two of the six studies reported a significant lowering effect of self-monitoring of blood glucose on HbA1c. However, one of these studies had a co-intervention with education on diet and lifestyle. There were few data on the effects of other outcomes and these effects were not statistically significant. AUTHORS'

conclusionsFrom this review we concluded that self-monitoring of blood glucose might be effective in improving glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes who are not using insulin. To assess the potential beneficial effects of SMBG in these patients a large and well-designed randomised controlled trial is required. This long-term trial should also investigate patient-related outcomes like quality of life, well-being and patient satisfaction, and provide adequate education to the patient to allow SMBG to be effective.

Indexed as

Blood Glucose Self-MonitoringDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2HumansHyperglycemiaHypoglycemic AgentsInsulinRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicHypoglycemic AgentsInsulin

Identifiers

PMID15846742
OpenAlexW4241338403

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.