ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Effects of continuous glucose monitoring in enhanced recovery after colorectal cancer patient surgery with type 2 diabetes (application of CGM in the ERAS process of CRC patient with diabetes).
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diabetes and cancer: glucose control impact on survival and tumor outcomes.Reviews in endocrine & metabolic disorders · 2026Review
- Postoperative glycemic variability as a predictor for one-year mortality following coronary artery bypass grafting: a retrospective cohort study.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) on enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) outcomes in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Methods: We conducted an observational cohort study of adult patients (≥18 years) with T2DM undergoing abdominal surgery for pathologically confirmed CRC. Exclusion criteria included history of other malignancies, preoperative infections, or incomplete clinical data. Participants were stratified into two groups: the exposed group (CGM monitoring) and the control group (conventional glucose analyzer [CGA]). Primary outcomes included glycemic variability, surgical complications, ERAS milestones, and patient satisfaction scores. Results: Among 181 enrolled patients (CGM = 81, CGA = 100), CGM demonstrated superior glycemic control compared to CGA, with significantly lower mean daily glucose levels at postoperative day 1 (9.52 ± 2.53 vs. 10.37 ± 2.26 mmol/L, Conclusion: CGM provides superior perioperative glucose monitoring in diabetic CRC patients, particularly during the critical 72-h postoperative period. The technology facilitates early detection of acute hyperglycemia, promotes wound healing, and accelerates recovery within ERAS protocols. These findings support the clinical value of CGM implementation in surgical management of T2DM patients with CRC.
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.