ArticleTouchREVIEWS in endocrinology2026
Knowledge, attitude and practice on continuous glucose monitoring and self-monitoring of blood glucose among healthcare professionals across India: A cross-sectional study.
Article in TouchREVIEWS in endocrinology, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Uncontrolled glycemia remains a major concern in India, underlining the need for wider adoption of effective glucose monitoring methods in diabetes care. Despite the benefits of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), its adoption remains low in India and is unevenly distributed across healthcare settings and patient populations. Methods: A cross-sectional, questionnaire-based survey was conducted among healthcare professionals (HCPs) practicing across private and public healthcare settings in India to assess their knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding CGM metrics using an 18-item questionnaire. Responses were measured using a 5-point Likert scale. Results: A total of 126 HCPs from different specialties participated in the study. Most HCPs (81.7%) expressed confidence in the use of CGM in patients with gestational diabetes mellitus. The majority of HCPs were confident or highly confident in interpreting CGM reports (80.1%) and explaining them to patients (81.8%). More than 90% of HCPs agreed that CGM improves overall diabetes management and 88.1% were confident that CGM helps reduce hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic episodes compared with self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) alone. Most HCPs (78.6%) agreed that the cost of CGM is a major barrier to its wider adoption in diabetes care. Despite recognizing the clinical value of CGM, fewer than half of HCPs believed it could completely replace SMBG. Conclusion: The study highlights the adoption-action gap of CGM use in diabetes care in Indian settings; however, the predominantly experienced, private-sector sample may limit generalizability to the broader HCP population. High costs, variable confidence in CGM interpretation and continued reliance on SMBG contributed to the gap despite HCPs' strong awareness of CGM's clinical value. Addressing these barriers and improving training may enhance CGM adoption nationwide.
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.