Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22258959›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2012

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

Uriëll L Malanda, Laura M C Welschen, Ingrid I Riphagen, Jacqueline M Dekker, Giel Nijpels, Sandra D M Bot

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 131 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
131citing papers in PubMed, 11 pooled it
24.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

131 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 361 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guideline: Developing a Diabetes Mellitus Comprehensive Care Plan-2022 Update.Endocrine practice : official journal of the American College of Endocrinology and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists · 2022
    Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Electronic blood glucose monitoring impacts on provider and patient behavior.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2022
    Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

71 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Uriëll L MalandaDepartment of General Practice, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU UniversityMedical Center, PO Box 7057, Amsterdam, 1007 MB, Netherlands. u.malanda@gmail.com. uriell.malanda@rivm.nl.
Laura M C Welschen
Ingrid I Riphagen
Jacqueline M Dekker
Giel Nijpels
Sandra D M Bot
EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research · NLNorwegian University of Science and Technology · NO

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.

objectivesTo assess the effects of SMBG in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who are not using insulin. SEARCH

methodsMultiple electronic bibliographic and ongoing trial databases were searched supplemented with handsearches of references of retrieved articles (date of last search: 07 July 2011). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials investigating the effects of SMBG compared with usual care, self-monitoring of urine glucose (SMUG) or both in patients with type 2 diabetes who where not using insulin. Studies that used glycosylated haemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) as primary outcome were eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data from included studies and evaluated the studies' risk of bias. Data from the studies were compared to decide whether they were sufficiently homogeneous to pool in a meta-analysis. Primary outcomes were HbA(1c), health-related quality of life, well-being and patient satisfaction. Secondary outcomes were fasting plasma glucose level, hypoglycaemic episodes, morbidity, adverse effects and costs. MAIN

resultsTwelve randomised controlled trials were included and evaluated outcomes in 3259 randomised patients. Intervention duration ranged from 6 months (26 weeks) to 12 months (52 weeks). Nine trials compared SMBG with usual care without monitoring, one study compared SMBG with SMUG, one study was a three-armed trial comparing SMBG and SMUG with usual care and one study was a three-armed trial comparing less intensive SMBG and more intensive SMBG with a control group. Seven out of 11 studies had a low risk of bias for most indicators. Meta-analysis of studies including patients with a diabetes duration of one year or more showed a statistically significant SMBG induced decrease in HbA(1c) at up to six months follow-up (-0.3; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.4 to -0.1; 2324 participants, nine trials), yet an overall statistically non-significant SMBG induced decrease was seen at 12 month follow-up (-0.1; 95% CI -0.3 to 0.04; 493 participants, two trials). Qualitative analysis of the effect of SMBG on well-being and quality of life showed no effect on patient satisfaction, general well-being or general health-related quality of life. Two trials reported costs of self-monitoring: One trial compared the costs of self-monitoring of blood glucose with self-monitoring of urine glucose based on nine measurements per week and with the prices in US dollars for self-monitoring in 1990. Authors concluded that total costs in the first year of self-monitoring of blood glucose, with the purchase of a reflectance meter were 12 times more expensive than self-monitoring of urine glucose ($481 or 361 EURO [11/2011 conversion] versus $40 or 30 EURO [11/2011 conversion]). Another trial reported a full economical evaluation of the costs and effects of self-monitoring. At the end of the trial, costs for the intervention were £89 (104 EURO [11/2011 conversion]) for standardized usual care (control group), £181 (212 EURO [11/2011 conversion]) for the less intensive self-monitoring group and £173 (203 EURO [11/2011 conversion]) for the more intensive self-monitoring group. Higher losses to follow-up in the more intensive self-monitoring group were responsible for the difference in costs, compared to the less intensive self-monitoring group.There were few data on the effects on other outcomes and these effects were not statistically significant. None of the studies reported data on morbidity. AUTHORS'

conclusionsFrom this review, we conclude that when diabetes duration is over one year, the overall effect of self-monitoring of blood glucose on glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes who are not using insulin is small up to six months after initiation and subsides after 12 months. Furthermore, based on a best-evidence synthesis, there is no evidence that SMBG affects patient satisfaction, general well-being or general health-related quality of life. More research is needed to explore the psychological impact of SMBG and its impact on diabetes specific quality of life and well-being, as well as the impact of SMBG on hypoglycaemia and diabetic complications.

Indexed as

Blood Glucose Self-MonitoringDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2HumansHyperglycemiaHypoglycemic AgentsInsulinQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicHypoglycemic AgentsInsulin

Identifiers

PMID22258959
PMCPMC11984800
OpenAlexW1924611079

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.