ArticleDiabetology & metabolic syndrome2025
Efficacy of intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring in patients with types 1 or 2 diabetes receiving insulin therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Diabetology & metabolic syndrome, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMonitoring glucose levels is crucial for managing glycemic control. Methods include self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG), continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), and intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM).
objectiveTo assess the efficacy of isCGM versus SMBG in individuals with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) on insulin therapy.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review including randomized controlled trials involving patients over 4 years old with T1DM or T2DM on multiple daily insulin regimens, comparing isCGM to SMBG. The outcomes analyzed were HbA1c (%), time below the target glucose range (TBR), patient satisfaction (DTSQ), device-related adverse events, time in range (TIR), and hypoglycemic events. Searches were performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL. Two independent reviewers screened studies, assessed the risk of bias, and extracted data. The meta-analyses employed a random-effects model, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated via the GRADE system.
resultsSeventeen studies with 1,860 participants were included. The isCGM demonstrated a moderate certainty of evidence for reducing HbA1c (Mean difference [MD]: -0.25%, 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: -0.39- -0.10%; I²: 82.6% 13 studies; 1,482 patients) and enhancing patient satisfaction (MD: 4.5, 95% CI: 2.18- 6.82; I²: 92.9%; 10 studies; 1,150 patients). Meta-regression revealed that intervention duration was a significant moderator of HbA1c reduction. isCGM also favored a reduction in TBR, with an MD of -0.15% (95% CI: -0.23- -0.07%; I²: 96.7% 8 studies; 1,094 patients; low certainty). Mild device-related adverse events were more common in the isCGM group (Relative risk: 2.69, 95% CI: 1.5- 4.81; I²: 0%; 7 studies; 991 participants; moderate certainty). The overall frequency of participants who discontinued isCGM due to cutaneous adverse events was 1% (95% CI: 0-6%; 7 studies; 533 participants). No clear effects were observed for TIR (MD: 0.02%, 95% CI: -0.05- 0.1%; I²: 79.6%; 11 studies; 1,318 patients; very low certainty) or hypoglycemic episodes.
conclusionsCompared with SMBG, isCGM reduces HbA1c, enhances patient satisfaction, and reduces TBR. However, it may increase the incidence of mild device-related adverse events. No definitive effects were observed on the TIR or hypoglycemia frequency. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42024562805.
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.