SynthesisDiabetes technology & therapeutics2026
Usability of Continuous Glucose Monitoring for Older Adults with Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Diabetes technology & therapeutics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Usability of Continuous Glucose Monitoring for Older Adults with Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review.Diabetes technology & therapeutics · 2026Pooled it
- 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This systematic review aims to examine the use and usability of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) among older adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. The following databases, PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL, were searched for studies published between 2019 and 2024, and results were documented using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist. Eligibility criteria included English-language studies that researched the use and usability of CGM in adults 60 years or older with a minimum wear time of 2 weeks. We extracted usability (efficiency, effectiveness, and satisfaction) outcomes. Study quality was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program Checklist. Of the 118 identified titles, 58 articles underwent a full-text review, with seven being included in the final analysis. Studies evaluated clinical management of type 2 diabetes with CGM, assessing the following differences: CGM versus usual care, CGM across device types, and CGM across care models. Clinical effectiveness, based on glycated hemoglobin and time-in-range, and satisfaction were higher across CGM types compared with usual care. Based on descriptive measures, satisfaction was higher with real-time CGM than professional-mode CGM. Efficiency findings were not reported in the included studies. There were no findings on the effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction of ambulatory glucose profile (AGP) metrics. Although the clinical effectiveness of CGM among adults 60 years or older was demonstrated in the reviewed studies, our usability assessment is inconclusive. There is a gap in evidence related to the essential components that comprise the context of CGM use, which prohibits a complete usability assessment. Future studies are warranted to investigate CGM usability, emphasizing AGP metrics, to inform improvements and personalization for older adults.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.