Key result
Continuous glucose monitoring significantly reduced HbA1c compared to self-monitoring of blood glucose in type 2 diabetes mellitus (MD -0.25; 95% CI -0.45 to -0.06; p=0.01).
Why the study?
Evidence was varying and inconclusive regarding whether continuous glucose monitoring is more effective than self-monitoring of blood glucose in patients with type 2 diabetes.
Does continuous glucose monitoring reduce HbA1c compared to self-monitoring of blood glucose in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus?
Meta-Analysis
Does continuous glucose monitoring reduce HbA1c compared to self-monitoring of blood glucose in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus?
Mean Difference: -0.25 (95% CI -0.45–-0.06)
p-value: p=0.01
Continuous glucose monitoring significantly reduces HbA1c compared to self-monitoring of blood glucose in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Supports CGM preference in T2D management; extends RCT evidence via updated meta-analysis.
Janapala et al. (2019) conducted a meta-analysis in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) vs. Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) was evaluated on glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) (MD -0.25, 95% CI -0.45 to -0.06, p=0.01). Continuous glucose monitoring significantly reduced HbA1c compared to self-monitoring of blood glucose in type 2 diabetes mellitus (MD -0.25; 95% CI -0.45 to -0.06; p=0.01).
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: