Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2022 Apr;65(4):604-619.
doi: 10.1007/s00125-021-05648-4. Epub 2022 Feb 9.

Effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring in maintaining glycaemic control among people with type 1 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials and meta-analysis

Evelyn Teo  1 , Norasyikin Hassan  2 , Wilson Tam  3 , Serena Koh  4
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring in maintaining glycaemic control among people with type 1 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials and meta-analysis

Evelyn Teo et al. Diabetologia. 2022 Apr.

Abstract

Aims/hypothesis: The aim of this work was to assess the effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) vs self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in maintaining glycaemic control among people with type 1 diabetes mellitus.

Methods: Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, trial registries and grey literature were searched from 9 June 2011 until 22 December 2020 for RCTs comparing CGM intervention against SMBG control among the non-pregnant individuals with type 1 diabetes mellitus of all ages and both sexes on multiple daily injections or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion with HbA1c levels, severe hypoglycaemia and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) as outcomes. Studies also included any individual or caregiver-led CGM systems. Studies involving GlucoWatch were excluded. Risk of bias was appraised with Cochrane risk of bias tool. Meta-analysis and meta-regression were performed using Review Manager software and R software, respectively. Heterogeneity was evaluated using χ2 and I2 statistics. Overall effects and certainty of evidence were evaluated using Z statistic and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) software.

Results: Twenty-two studies, involving 2188 individuals with type 1 diabetes, were identified. Most studies had low risk of bias. Meta-analysis of 21 studies involving 2149 individuals revealed that CGM significantly decreased HbA1c levels compared with SMBG (mean difference -2.46 mmol/mol [-0.23%] [95% CI -3.83, -1.08], Z = 3.50, p=0.0005), with larger effects experienced among higher baseline HbA1c >64 mmol/mol (>8%) individuals (mean difference -4.67 mmol/mol [-0.43%] [95% CI -6.04, -3.30], Z = 6.69, p<0.00001). However, CGM had no influence on the number of severe hypoglycaemia (p=0.13) and DKA events (p=0.88). Certainty of evidence was moderate.

Conclusions/interpretation: CGM is superior to SMBG in improving glycaemic control among individuals with type 1 diabetes in the community, especially in those with uncontrolled glycaemia. Individuals with type 1 diabetes with HbA1c >64 mmol/mol (>8%) are most likely to benefit from CGM. Current findings could not confer a concrete conclusion on the effectiveness of CGM on DKA outcome as DKA incidences were rare. Current evidence is also limited to outpatient settings. Future research should evaluate the accuracy of CGM and the effectiveness of CGM across different age groups and insulin regimens as these remain unclear in this paper.

Prospero registration: Registration no. CRD42020207042.

Funding: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Keywords: Continuous glucose monitoring; Glycaemic control; Meta-analysis; Self-monitoring of blood glucose; Systematic review; Type 1 diabetes.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

References

    1. Tuomilehto J (2013) The emerging global epidemic of type 1 diabetes. Curr Diabetes Rep 13(6):795–804. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11892-013-0433-5 - DOI
    1. Tao B, Pietropaolo M, Atkinson M, Schatz D, Taylor D (2010) Estimating the cost of type 1 diabetes in the U.S.: a propensity score matching method. PLoS One 5(7):Article e11501. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0011501 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sussman M, Benner J, Haller MJ, Rewers M, Griffiths R (2020) Estimated lifetime economic burden of type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther 22(2):121–130. https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2019.0398 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Secrest AM, Washington RE, Orchard TJ. Mortality in Type 1 Diabetes. In: Cowie CC, Casagrande SS, Menke A, et al, editors. Diabetes in America. 3rd edition. Bethesda (MD): National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (US); 2018 Aug. CHAPTER 35. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK567986/
    1. Nathan DM, Genuth S, Lachin J et al (1993) The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 329(14):977–986. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199309303291401 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources