ArticleClinical medicine insights. Endocrinology and diabetes2025
A Scoping Review of Glucose Spikes in People Without Diabetes: Comparing Insights from Grey Literature and Medical Research.
Article in Clinical medicine insights. Endocrinology and diabetes, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- An acute crossover trial of passive movement training with and without blood flow restriction to determine the impact on postprandial glycaemia.Experimental physiology · 2026Article
- Real-Time Psychological Factors Using Ecological Momentary Assessment With Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Diabetes Mellitus: Scoping Review.JMIR diabetes · 2026Review
- The cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein, and glucose index and its derived indices predict diabetic kidney disease development and progression: evidence from two nationwide cohorts and a biopsy-proven clinical cohort.Cardiovascular diabetology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has grown, extending its use to people without diabetes. CGM helps prevent hyperglycaemia-related complications in diabetes, however, its value in people without diabetes remains uncertain. Despite online sources framing glucose spikes as harmful, studies show that overall, most healthy individuals maintain normal glucose levels - therefore questioning the significance of these spikes. This project aims to examine whether glucose spikes affect the health of people without diabetes. By comparing the medical and grey literature, we aim to determine whether the grey literature aligns with the peer-reviewed medical literature, or whether it could cause harm through misinformation. Methods: Population: people without diabetes and human endothelial cells; Concept: the effect of glucose spikes on health; Context: global studies and grey literature. Following the PRISMA-ScR guidelines, a systematic search was undertaken via Medline, Embase and Proquest. Fifty-nine sources were reviewed - 11 medical research papers and 48 grey literature sources. Excel spreadsheets were developed and piloted for the medical and grey literature respectively. Data was extracted and charted, and a narrative synthesis was formulated. Results: Both the medical and grey literature reported glucose spikes can cause endothelial dysfunction, oxidative stress and inflammation in people without diabetes or human endothelial cells. However, the grey literature reported additional effects that is, increased risk of cancer and effects on mental health, energy, mood and sleep. Conclusions: Glucose spikes may impact the health of people without diabetes, but significant health outcomes likely stem from long-term frequent spikes rather than isolated acute spikes. Discrepancies between the medical and grey literature highlight potential for misinformation in the grey literature, although the author does not claim cited sources are misleading, nor does the absence of claims in medical literature mean grey literature is misinforming. Further research is needed to verify if grey literature claims align with peer-reviewed evidence, as hypothetically, misinformation could significantly impact consumer wellbeing.
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.