SynthesisBMC endocrine disorders2026
Efficacy of continuous glucose monitoring in comparison to self-blood glucose monitoring in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus under insulin treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC endocrine disorders, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDiabetes Mellitus (DM) affects approximately 10.5% of the global population, necessitating effective glucose monitoring to mitigate complications. Self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) lacks dynamic glycemic profiling, while continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) provides real-time/intermittent data. This review compares CGM and SMBG in insulin-treated type 2 diabetes (T2DM) patients.
methodA systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus was conducted until May 2025 and included RCTs compared CGM with SMBG in terms of glycemic indices in adults with T2DM on insulin therapy (± oral agents), excluding studies < 6 weeks or non-insulin treatments. Meta-analysis using a random-effect model was performed.
resultsThirteen RCTs (n = 1550) were included. CGM significantly reduced HbA1c (mean difference [MD] = − 2.78 mmol/mol, 95% CI: −4.68 to − 0.88) and TBR (MD = − 1.30%, 95% CI: −1.94 to − 0.65) versus SMBG. TAR reduction (MD = − 4.12%, 95% CI: −9.11 to 0.88) and TIR increase (MD = 4.04%, 95% CI: −0.09 to 8.17) were non-significant. Substantial heterogeneity in HbA1c (I²=89.66%) persisted despite subgroup analyses based on CGM type. DISCUSSION: CGM improves long-term glucose control (HbA1c) and hypoglycemia risk (TBR) in insulin-treated T2DM, supporting its clinical utility. Non-significant TIR/TAR trends may reflect limited statistical power. Future studies are warranted to delineate the outcome disparities between CGM and SMBG. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.