SynthesisFarmaceuticos comunitarios2024
[Continuous glucose monitoring devices in people over 65 years: literature review].
Synthesis in Farmaceuticos comunitarios, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in elderly patients with diabetes is not well documented. The present study search to know the current status of use of CGM devices in patients with diabetes over 65 years of age. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed and Scopus databases in November 2023. The following descriptors were used, linked using the Boolean operators AND and OR: Diabetes, Continuous glucose monitoring, Flash glucose monitoring, Glycemia, Glycemic control, Controlled diabetes, Diabetes care, Metrics, Older and Elder. The CASPe critical reading system and the PRISMA methodology were applied to document the review. Results: Fourteen selected studies published between 2019 and 2023 were reviewed. Publications from European countries used small sample sizes and were intervention studies. The duration of the interventions was generally short: 7 were ≤14 days in duration and only 3 were 6-12 months in duration. Overall, the selected articles found that CGM improved glycemic outcomes due to a decrease in glycosylated hemoglobin value and an improvement in CGM metrics, and diabetes-associated complications in elderly patients with diabetes. Conclusion: CGM seems to be a useful and effective tool to improving glycemic outcomes of people with diabetes over age 65. Further studies under real-world conditions and of longer duration are needed to expand and improve the evidence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.