ReviewActa diabetologica2026
Continuous glucose monitoring and glycaemic variability in acute ischaemic stroke: a systematic review with narrative synthesis.
Review in Acta diabetologica, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Dysglycaemia is common after acute ischaemic stroke and is associated with adverse outcomes. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) provides frequent interstitial glucose measurements and may identify glycaemic variability and excursions missed by intermittent testing. This systematic review evaluated CGM feasibility, accuracy, glycaemic patterns and clinical associations in acute ischaemic stroke. MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL were searched to January 2026 for studies of adults undergoing CGM within seven days of stroke onset or admission. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2 or the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and certainty of evidence using GRADE. Seven studies enrolled 595 participants; monitoring lasted 24 h to 4.5 days. Mean glucose ranged from approximately 118 to 149 mg/dL and coefficient of variation from 4% to 21%. Observational studies provided low- or very-low-certainty evidence that greater hyperglycaemic exposure or variability was associated with death or dependency, unfavourable outcome after thrombectomy and reduced in-hospital neurological improvement. An unadjusted time-above-range difference between functional-trajectory groups was not independently significant after adjustment. One diabetes-only randomised trial evaluated a multi-component intervention combining structured nursing, insulin-pump therapy and CGM. Two-week neurological, motor, self-care and quality-of-life measures favoured the intervention, but modified Rankin Scale and longer-term outcomes were not reported, and the effect of CGM could not be isolated. CGM appears feasible, but evidence is heterogeneous and insufficient to support routine implementation. Standardised metrics and adequately powered multicentre trials are required.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42525133What 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.