Cited by 407Diabetes Management and EducationDiabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes Treatment and Management

Impact of self monitoring of blood glucose in the management of patients with non-insulin treated diabetes: open parallel group randomised trial

Open access
Farmer, Andrew, Wade, Alisha, Goyder, Elizabeth, Yudkin, Patricia, French, David, Craven, Anthea, Holman, Rury, Kinmonth, Ann-Louise +1 more·2007·BMJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether self monitoring, alone or with instruction in incorporating the results into self care, is more effective than usual care in improving glycaemic control in non-insulin treated patients with type 2 diabetes. DESIGN: Three arm, open, parallel group randomised trial. SETTING: 48 general practices in Oxfordshire and South Yorkshire. PARTICIPANTS: 453 patients with non-insulin treated type 2 diabetes (mean age 65.7 years) for a median duration of three years and a mean haemoglobin A1c level of 7.5%. INTERVENTIONS: Standardised usual care with measurements of HbA1c every three months as the control group (n=152), blood glucose self monitoring with advice for patients to contact their doctor for interpretation of results, in addition to usual care (n=150), and blood glucose self monitoring with additional training of patients in interpretation and application of the results to enhance motivation and maintain adherence to a healthy lifestyle (n=151). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: HbA1c level measured at 12 months. RESULTS: At 12 months the differences in HbA1c level between the three groups (adjusted for baseline HbA1c level) were not statistically significant (P=0.12). The difference in unadjusted mean change in HbA1c level from baseline to 12 months between the control and less intensive self monitoring groups was -0.14% (95% confidence interval -0.35% to 0.07%) and between the control and more intensive self monitoring groups was -0.17% (-0.37% to 0.03%). CONCLUSIONS: Evidence is not convincing of an effect of self monitoring blood glucose, with or without instruction in incorporating findings into self care, in improving glycaemic control compared with usual care in reasonably well controlled non-insulin treated patients with type 2 diabetes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN47464659.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.39247.447431.be

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Current evidence on SMBG in insulin-naïve type 2 diabetic patients is mixed, with some studies showing significant glycemic benefits and others showing no significant benefits.

    “Current evidence in this latter population is mixed, with some studies pointing to significant glycemic benefits resulting from SMBG use (8–10), while others have shown no significant benefits (11–13).”
  • In a retrospective analysis, frequency of blood glucose monitoring has been shown to predict A1C levels.

    “Frequency of BGM (in a retrospective analysis) has been shown to be predictive of A1C levels.142–146”

    From American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guideline: Developing a Diabetes Mellitus Comprehensive Care Plan-2022 Update. (2022) · cites this paper as [146]

    The Outcome measures section says the trial recorded testing frequency, and Statistical analysis describes comparisons of HbA1c between randomized groups. Neither passage reports a retrospective analysis showing that monitoring frequency predicts HbA1c; searches for that association found no such passage in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.73)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Forty-four RCTs examined the impact of interventions on disease-specific outcomes.

    “Forty four RCTs examined the impact of interventions on disease specific outcomes”

    From Helping patients help themselves: A systematic review of self-management support strategies in primary health care practice (2019) · cites this paper as [48]

    The Interventions and Secondary outcomes sections describe one randomized trial of blood-glucose self-monitoring, not an assessment of 44 RCTs. Searches for “forty four RCTs” and “44 randomised controlled trials” found no passage in our copy giving that count or describing their disease-specific outcomes; page numbers were unavailable. (LLM, conf=0.77)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The DiGEM trial found evidence not convincing of an effect of SMBG on glycemic control compared with usual care in reasonably well controlled non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes patients.

    “Evidence is not convincing of an effect of self monitoring blood glucose . . . in improving glycaemic control [as assessed by HbA 1c ] compared with usual care in reasonably well controlled non-insulin treated patients with type 2 diabetes.”
  • Oral glucose-lowering regimens that do not include sulfonylureas or glinides are not likely to cause hypoglycemia.

    “Oral glucose-lowering regimens that do not include sulfonylureas or glinides, and are therefore not likely to cause hypoglycemia, usually do not require SMBG (86).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [18]18. Owens DR, Barnett AH, Pickup J, Kerr D, Bushby P, Hicks D, et al. Blood glucose self-monitoring in type 1 and type 2 diabetes: reaching a multi-disciplinary consensus. Diabetes Primary Care 2004;6:398-402.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Farmer, A., Wade, A., Goyder, E., Yudkin, P., French, D., Craven, A., Holman, R., Kinmonth, A.-L., & Neil, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • University of Sheffield (GB)
  • Coventry University (GB)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
Corresponding author
Farmer, Andrew
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2007-06-25
Volume
335
Issue
7611
Pages
132
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2123342488
Cited by
407
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 23 · 2012: 27
FWCI
38.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
  • Coventry University Open Collections (Coventry university) (submittedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • Pure (Coventry University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion)
  • The Open Collections (Coventry University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
Keywords
self-monitoring of blood glucose, type 2 diabetes, non-insulin-treated diabetes, glycemic control, HbA1c, patient education, self-care, usual care, general practice
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Blood Glucose, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Hypoglycemia, Male, Middle Aged, Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring, Treatment Outcome

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