Cited by 117Diabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes Treatment and ManagementDiabetes Management and Education

Continuous Glucose Monitoring Versus Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis

Open access
Janapala, Rajesh Naidu, Jayaraj, Joseph S, Fathima, Nida, Kashif, Tooba, Usman, Norina, Dasari, Amulya, Jahan, Nusrat, Sachmechi, Issac·2019·Cureus

Abstract

Every eleventh adult has diabetes, and every third has prediabetes. Over 95% of diabetics are of type 2. It is well established that diabetes doubles the risk of heart disease and stroke apart from increasing the risk of microvascular complications. Hence, strict glycemic control is necessary. However, it increases the risk of hypoglycemia, especially in patients with longstanding diabetes. Continuous glucose monitors (CGM) use a sensor to continuously measure the glucose levels in the interstitial fluid every 10 seconds and gives out mean values every five minutes. CGMs are emerging tools in the management of type 2 diabetes. The prime objective of this review is to find out if there is enough supporting evidence, suggesting that continuous glucose monitoring is more effective than self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in type 2 diabetes. We conducted a systematic literature search in Medline (PubMed) looking for any studies addressing our objective. It is observed that there is a varying level of evidence supporting that employing a CGM can reduce glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), hypoglycemic events, and increase patient satisfaction. However, some studies reported no significant benefits. This systematic review with meta-analysis concludes that the use of CGM in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is beneficial, as it significantly reduces HbA1c compared to the usual method of SMBG. The pooled mean difference in HbA1c was -0.25 (-0.45, -0.06) and statistically significant (at p = 0.01) when comparing CGM to SMBG.

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 · 10.7759/cureus.5634

Cites

29 of 29 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?

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: 2

  1. [1]IDF Diabetes Atlas - 8th edition 7 2019 International Diabetes Federation Diabetes Atlas. (2019 2019 https://diabetesatlas.org/key-messages.html
  2. [27]New Recommendations for Time-in-Range Targets During Continuous Glucose Monitoring Presented Today at the ADA’s Scientific Sessions 7 2019 2019 http://www.diabetes.org/newsroom/press-releases/2019/new-recommendations-for.html.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Janapala, R. N., Jayaraj, J. S., Fathima, N., Kashif, T., Usman, N., Dasari, A., Jahan, N., & Sachmechi, I.
Affiliations
VA Palo Alto Health Care System (US)
Corresponding author
Janapala, Rajesh Naidu
Venue
Cureus
Published
2019-09-12
Volume
11
Issue
9
Pages
e5634-e5634
ISSN
2168-8184 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2973024432
Cited by
117
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 2 · 2017: 1
FWCI
1.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Cureus (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
continuous glucose monitoring, self-monitoring of blood glucose, type 2 diabetes, glycemic control, HbA1c, hypoglycemia, patient satisfaction, diabetes management

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