Cited by 90Diabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes Treatment and ManagementDiabetes Management and Education

Effects of Structured Versus Unstructured Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose on Glucose Control in Patients With Non-insulin-treated Type 2 Diabetes: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Open access
Mannucci, Edoardo, Antenore, Alessandro, Giorgino, Francesco, Scavini, Marina·2018·Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology

Abstract

Background: The use of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in patients with non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes is debated. Meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) suggest a small reduction of HbA1c in patients using SMBG, without considering potential confounders, such as SMBG regimen and use of SMBG data to adjust diabetes medications. Methods: A meta-analysis was performed including RCTs in patients with non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes, with an intervention of ≥24 weeks and HbA1c as the primary endpoint, to verify the effect of SMBG (vs no monitoring), structured SMBG (vs unstructured), and of SMBG-driven therapy adjustments. Results: In RCTs (n = 8) comparing SMBG with no SMBG (1277 and 1072 patients, respectively), SMBG reduced HbA1c by −0.17% (95% CI −0.25 to −0.09%, P < .003). The reduction in HbA1c was greater in RCTs (n = 3) in which SMBG data were used to adjust diabetes medications (HbA1c decrease: −0.3% [95% CI −0.49 to −0.1%]) than in RCTs (n = 6) where SMBG data were not used for this purpose (HbA1c decrease: −0.1% [95% CI −0.2 to 0.0%]) ( P < .005). In the RCTs comparing structured and unstructured SMBG (757 and 750 patients, respectively), in which structured SMBG data were also used to adjust diabetes medications, the HbA1c difference between groups at study end was −0.27% (95% CI −0.49 to −0.04%, P < .018). Conclusions: In RCTs performed in non-insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes, SMBG is associated with a significant, although small, reduction in HbA1c. HbA1c reduction was greater with structured SMBG and when structured SMBG data were used to adjust diabetes therapy.

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 · 10.1177/1932296817719290

Cites

36 of 36 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?

  • In people not using insulin, regular blood glucose monitoring did not produce significant differences in glycemic control.

    “In persons who are not using insulin, regular BGM did not result in significant differences in glycemic control.147–150”

    From American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guideline: Developing a Diabetes Mellitus Comprehensive Care Plan-2022 Update. (2022) · cites this paper as [148]

    The Abstract (p. 1) reports that, among patients with non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes, self-monitoring produced a statistically significant, though small, reduction in HbA1c compared with no monitoring (−0.17%; 95% CI −0.25 to −0.09%). That contradicts the attributed claim that monitoring produced no significant difference in glycemic control. (LLM, conf=0.94)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Previous reviews' inclusion criteria specified RCTs including a uSMBG comparator, thus overlooking evidence where sSMBG was compared to usual care, no SMBG, or CGM.

    “However, inclusion criteria specified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including a uSMBG comparator (k=3 (29) and k=4 (30)), thus overlooking evidence where sSMBG was compared to usual care, no SMBG, or CGM.”

    From The impact of structured self-monitoring of blood glucose on clinical, behavioral, and psychosocial outcomes among adults with non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2023) · cites this paper as [29]

    Study Selection (p. 2) says this meta-analysis included RCTs comparing SMBG with no SMBG, as well as trials comparing structured with unstructured SMBG. Retrieved Trials (p. 3) reports eight trials with a no-SMBG comparator, contrary to the claim that its criteria required an unstructured-SMBG comparator and overlooked no-SMBG evidence. (LLM, conf=0.93)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The decreases of HbA 1c in those using BGM were similar to the decreases in comparably treated people who did not use BGM.

    “The decreases of HbA 1c in those using BGM were similar to the decreases in comparably treated people who did not use BGM.”

    From Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Analysis in the Diagnosis and Management of Diabetes Mellitus (2023) · cites this paper as [114]

    In “Trials Comparing SMBG with no SMBG” (p. 3), the paper reports a statistically significant greater reduction in HbA1c with self-monitoring than without it (−0.17 percentage points in the full dataset). The Discussion (p. 5) likewise calls the reduction small but significant, rather than similar between groups. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In people with type 2 diabetes not using insulin, routine glucose monitoring is of limited additional clinical benefit while adding burden and cost.

    “In people with type 2 diabetes not using insulin, routine glucose monitoring is of limited additional clinical bene fi t while adding burden and cost (54,55).”

    From Management of Hyperglycemia in Type 2 Diabetes, 2022. A Consensus Report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) (2022) · cites this paper as [54]

    The Abstract (p. 1) reports a small but statistically significant HbA1c reduction with self-monitoring in people with non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes. The Conclusions (p. 6) say benefits are more evident with structured monitoring used to adjust treatment. The paper does not establish the claimed burden or cost, so it supports only the limited-benefit portion of the sentence. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Previous reviews have paid little attention to the impact of sSMBG on treatment modification, behavioral outcomes, or psychosocial outcomes.

    “Furthermore, previous reviews have paid little attention to the impact of sSMBG on treatment modification, behavioral outcomes (i.e. self-care) or psychosocial outcomes (e.g. self-efficacy, treatment satisfaction, well-being, quality of life) (17, 29, 31).”

    From The impact of structured self-monitoring of blood glucose on clinical, behavioral, and psychosocial outcomes among adults with non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2023) · cites this paper as [29]

    The introduction (p. 2) says previous meta-analyses did not properly account for the SMBG regimen or the use of glucose data to adjust medications, supporting the treatment-modification portion. It does not say previous reviews paid little attention to self-care outcomes; it also notes (p. 1) that a Cochrane review assessed evidence on satisfaction, well-being, and quality of life. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mannucci, E., Antenore, A., Giorgino, F., & Scavini, M.
Affiliations
  • Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi (IT)
  • University of Bari Aldo Moro (IT)
  • IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele (IT)
Corresponding author
Giorgino, Francesco
Venue
Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology
Published
2017-07-12
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
183-189
ISSN
1932-2968 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2736052465
Cited by
90
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2
FWCI
1.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Florence Research (University of Florence) (submittedVersion)
  • CINECA IRIS Institutional Research Information System (University of Bari Aldo Moro) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
Keywords
self-monitoring of blood glucose, type 2 diabetes, non-insulin-treated diabetes, glycemic control, HbA1c, medication adjustment, diabetes self-management
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Blood Glucose, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

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