SynthesisActa diabetologica2026
Evidence-based recommendations for the use of continuous glucose monitoring in type 2 diabetes: the Italian guidelines.
Synthesis in Acta diabetologica, 2026. 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.
- Beyond Coverage Expansion: Exploring Persistent Barriers to CGM Utilization in the Clinical Environment.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsAlthough continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices are now standard of care among Type 1 diabetes patients, they are still relatively underutilized in Type 2 diabetes (T2D), particularly in those patients not treated with insulin. Widespread adoption continues to be hindered by a combination of factors. Chief among these is the scarcity of long-term, large-scale clinical trials demonstrating the benefits of the use of CGM in T2D. This meta-analysis aimed to address this gap by comparing CGM with self-blood glucose monitoring (SBMG), with primary outcomes of HbA1c and time in range (TIR) in insulin-treated and non-insulin-treated TD2 patients. METHODS AND
resultsFollowing the stringent rules mandated by our National Health Service (which requires a panel composed of all stakeholders involved in diabetes treatment, and includes PICO, GRADE, AGREE, and meta-analyses), we performed a systematic review of RCTs that enrolled two groups of individuals with T2D, those treated with insulin (including basal and basal-bolus regimens), and those receiving treatments other than insulin. All included trials compared CGM with structured blood glucose monitoring (SBGM) with glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) as the main endpoint. Based on the strength and consistency of the evidence, the panel issued a strong recommendation in favor of CGM for individuals with T2D treated with insulin (including those on basal insulin alone) and for individuals with T2D not treated with insulin, particularly for those with glycated hemoglobin levels ≥ 7%. From a pharmacoeconomic perspective, outcomes were positive in both patient groups.
conclusionCGM represents a clinically effective and cost-efficient approach to optimizing glycemic control in T2D, becoming mandatory among individuals on insulin therapy. Our findings support a shift in clinical practice toward the more widespread use of CGM in T2D, with regulatory frameworks and reimbursement policies needing to adapt accordingly.
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.