Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39716288›Full record

SynthesisThe international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity2024

The efficacy of using continuous glucose monitoring as a behaviour change tool in populations with and without diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Kelli M Richardson, Michelle R Jospe, Lauren C Bohlen, Jacob Crawshaw, Ahlam A Saleh, Susan M Schembre

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Kelli M Richardson *School of Nutritional Sciences and Wellness, College of Agriculture, Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA.
Michelle R Jospe *Department of Oncology, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, 2115 Wisconsin Avenue NW Suite 300, Washington, D.C, 20007, USA.
Lauren C BohlenCenter for Health Promotion and Health Equity, Department of Behavioural and Social Sciences, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, RI, USA.
Jacob CrawshawCentre for Implementation Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Ahlam A SalehArizona Health Sciences Library, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA.
Susan M SchembreDepartment of Oncology, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, 2115 Wisconsin Avenue NW Suite 300, Washington, D.C, 20007, USA. ss4731@georgetown.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9945-7136

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundContinuous glucose monitoring (CGM) holds potential as a precision public health intervention, offering personalised insights into how diet and physical activity affect glucose levels. Nevertheless, the efficacy of using CGM in populations with and without diabetes to support behaviour change and behaviour-driven outcomes remains unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis examines whether using CGM-based feedback to support behaviour change affects glycaemic, anthropometric, and behavioural outcomes in adults with and without diabetes.

methodsOvid MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Elsevier Embase, EBSCOhost PsycINFO, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global were searched through January 2024. Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials in adults that implemented CGM-based feedback in at least one study arm compared to a control without CGM feedback. Dual screening, data extraction, and bias assessment were conducted independently. Mean differences in outcomes between intervention and comparison groups were analysed using generic inverse variance models and random effects. Robustness of pooled estimates from random-effects models was considered with sensitivity and subgroup analyses.

resultsTwenty-five clinical trials with 2996 participants were included. Most studies were conducted in adults with type 2 diabetes (n = 17/25; 68%), followed by type 1 diabetes (n = 3/25, 12%), gestational diabetes (n = 3/25, 12%), and obesity (n = 3/25, 12%). Eleven (44%) studies reported CGM-affiliated conflicts of interest. Interventions incorporating CGM-based feedback reduced HbA1c by 0.28% (95% CI 0.15, 0.42, p < 0.001; I

conclusionsThis evidence synthesis found favourable, though modest, effects of CGM-based feedback on glycaemic control in adults with and without diabetes. Further research is needed to establish the behaviours and behavioural mechanisms driving the observed effects across diverse populations.

trial registrationCRD42024514135.

Indexed as

Blood GlucoseBlood Glucose Self-MonitoringDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2ExerciseRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAdultContinuous Glucose MonitoringDiabetes Mellitus, Type 1FemaleGlycated HemoglobinHealth BehaviorHumansPregnancyBlood GlucoseGlycated Hemoglobinbehaviour changecontinuous glucose monitoringdigital healthglycaemic controlglycated haemoglobinprecision healthprecision medicine

Identifiers

PMID39716288
PMCPMC11668089

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.