Cited by 197Diabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes Management and EducationDiabetes Treatment and Management

Continuous glucose monitoring: A review of the evidence in type 1 and 2 diabetes mellitus

Lin, Rose, Brown, Fran, James, Steven, Jones, Jessica, Ekinci, Elif·2021·Diabetic Medicine

Abstract

Context and Aim: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is becoming widely accepted as an adjunct to diabetes management. Compared to standard care, CGM can provide detailed information about glycaemic variability in an internationally standardised ambulatory glucose profile, enabling more informed user and clinician decision making. We aimed to review the evidence, user experience and cost‐effectiveness of CGM. Methods: A literature search was conducted by combining subject headings ‘CGM’ and ‘flash glucose monitoring’, with key words ‘type 1 diabetes’ and ‘type 2 diabetes’, limited to ‘1999 to current’. Further evidence was obtained from relevant references of retrieved articles. Results: There is a strong evidence for CGM use in people with type 1 diabetes, with benefits of reduced glycated haemoglobin and hypoglycaemia, and increased time in range. While the evidence for CGM use in type 2 diabetes is less robust, similar benefits have been demonstrated. CGM can improve diabetes‐related satisfaction in people with diabetes (PWD) and parents of children with diabetes, as well as the clinician experience. However, CGM does have limitations including cost, accuracy and perceived inconvenience. Cost‐effectiveness analyses have indicated that CGM is a cost‐effective adjunct to type 1 diabetes management that is associated with reduced diabetes‐related complications and hospitalisation. Conclusions: Continuous glucose monitoring is revolutionising diabetes management. It is a cost‐effective adjunct to diabetes management that has the potential to improve glycaemic outcomes and quality of life in PWD, especially type 1 diabetes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/dme.14528

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lin, R., Brown, F., James, S., Jones, J., & Ekinci, E.
Affiliations
  • Austin Hospital (AU)
  • Melbourne Diabetes Education and Support Heidelberg Heights Vic. Australia
  • University of the Sunshine Coast (AU)
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
Corresponding author
Ekinci, Elif
Venue
Diabetic Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-03-06
Volume
38
Issue
5
Pages
e14528-e14528
ISSN
  • 0742-3071 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-5491
OpenAlex
W3121399117
Cited by
197
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 36 · 2025: 52 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 42 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 7
FWCI
4.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Diabetic Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
Keywords
continuous glucose monitoring, flash glucose monitoring, type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, glycemic variability, HbA1c, hypoglycemia, time in range, cost-effectiveness, user experience, diabetes management, quality of life
MeSH terms
Glycemic Control, Blood Glucose, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Glycated Hemoglobin, Hospitalization, Humans, Quality of Life, Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring, Patient Satisfaction, Diabetes Complications, History, 20th Century, History, 21st Century

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review