SynthesisEndocrine2025
The therapeutic efficacy of continuous glucose monitoring in diabetes: an updated meta-analysis with meta-regression.
Synthesis in Endocrine, 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.
- The Evolving Landscape of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Metrics in Type 1 Diabetes: Narrative Literature Review.JMIR diabetes · 2026Review
- Salivary microbiota signatures of periodontitis are associated with CGM-derived short-term glycaemic control in adults with type 1 diabetes: a pilot study.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
- Screening and monitoring of diabetic polyneuropathy in clinical practice: present and future with connected devices.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeContinuous glucose monitoring (CGM) plays a key role for achieving glycemic targets in many people with diabetes. We aim at 1) updating the evidence on the efficacy of CGM and 2) determining which is the contribution of CGM-related metrics to the change of both HbA1c and mean glucose, providing a meta-analysis with meta-regression of randomized controlled trials (RCT).
methodsElectronic database were searched until 20 December 2024. We included RCTs reporting both HbA1c and mean CGM glucose together with time in range (TIR), time above range (TAR) and time below range (TBR). Two investigators extracted data from each study. A random effect model was used to calculate the pooled weighted mean difference (WMD) with the 95% CI.
resultsThe meta-analysis included 19 studies involving 2936 patients. Compared with control strategies, CGM led to a reduction of both HbA1c (WMD -0.18%, 95% CI -0.28 to -0.08, P<0.001) and mean glucose (-5.07 mg/dL, 95% CI –8.46 to –1.68, P = 0.003), and improvement of TIR, TAR and TBR. In meta-regression, there was a significant association between the change in both HbA1c and mean glucose and TIR (beta = - 0.046, P <0.001 and beta = -1.98, P <0.001, respectively) and TAR (beta = 0.047, P<0.001 and beta = 1.69, P <0.001), that explained 100% of between-study variance.
conclusionCGM improve glucose control in diabetes. The change of TAR is the best contributor to the improvement of glucose control.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40952636What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.