ReviewCureus2025
Effectiveness of Self-Management of Blood Glucose in Improving Glycemic Control in Patients With Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) is a widely used strategy in diabetes management, allowing patients to track their glucose levels and make informed decisions regarding diet, medication, and lifestyle adjustments. The effectiveness of SMBG remains debated. Structured SMBG, which involves systematic monitoring with clear guidance, has been suggested to provide greater benefits compared to unstructured SMBG. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of SMBG in improving glycemic control among diabetic patients. A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. Studies were included if they examined SMBG interventions and reported glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) as an outcome. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies were assessed for quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager (RevMan, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark) to calculate mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). The comprehensive database search yielded 7,667 records, of which 22 articles were selected for review and analysis. The meta-analysis of 22 studies showed that SMBG significantly reduced HbA1c levels compared to no SMBG (MD = -0.32%, 95% CI: -0.44% to -0.20%). Structured SMBG resulted in a greater reduction (MD = -0.25%, 95% CI: -0.41% to -0.09%) compared to unstructured SMBG. In summary, we showed that SMBG is effective in lowering HbA1c, particularly when structured protocols are followed. Healthcare providers should promote structured SMBG, along with patient education, to enhance adherence and optimize glycemic control. Further long-term studies are necessary to evaluate long-term benefits.
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.