{"title":"持续血糖监测在2型糖尿病患者管理中的有效性：2011年至2024年系统综述的总括性回顾","authors":"Yong Yi Tan, Enhui Suan, Gerald Choon Huat Koh, Suhana Binte Suhairi, Shilpa Tyagi","doi":"10.1186/s13690-024-01459-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is increasingly popular for managing Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM). Many systematic reviews have reported on CGM's effectiveness, but with heterogeneous methodologies and objectives. We aim to conduct an umbrella review (UR) to consolidate a most contemporaneous and comprehensive evidence base comparing CGM with self-monitoring of blood glucose or usual care (SMBG/UC).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, Epistemonikos, SCOPUS, Web of Science and PubMed were searched from their dates of inception to 28th June 2024. Systematic reviews (SR) with or without meta-analyses comparing the use of CGM with SMBG or usual care (UC) for T2DM management in patients treated with or without insulin were included. Narrative synthesis of HbA1c, glycemic variability metrics and other physical measurements were done. Corrected covered area (CCA) was calculated to assess suitability of meta-meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>31 SRs were included in this UR. There was high overlap within meta-analyses of HbA1c, time-in-range (TIR), time-above-range (TAR) and time-below-range (TBR). A primary study-level meta-analysis demonstrated that compared to SMBG/UC, CGM was associated with significantly greater HbA1c decrease (n = 11,494, MD = -0.40% [95% CI: -0.54 to -0.25]), TIR increase (n = 1452, MD = 6.00% [95%CI: 3.13 to 8.88]) and TAR decrease (n = 1113, MD = -4.33% [95%CI: -8.37 to -0.28]).These findings were invariant with CGM modality, study funding, pre-existing insulin treatment and risk-of-bias. Meta-analysis of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) demonstrated insignificant differences in PROMs with CGM use compared to SMBG/UC.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>CGM could lead to better clinical outcomes than SMBG/UC and was of moderate evidence certainty (GRADE), while its effect on PROMs remains inconclusive. We recommend the introduction of CGM into standard care alongside SMBG for T2DM and further research exploring patient experience and acceptability of CGM use.</p>","PeriodicalId":48578,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Public Health","volume":"82 1","pages":"231"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11610123/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring in patient management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: an umbrella review of systematic reviews from 2011 to 2024.\",\"authors\":\"Yong Yi Tan, Enhui Suan, Gerald Choon Huat Koh, Suhana Binte Suhairi, Shilpa Tyagi\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13690-024-01459-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is increasingly popular for managing Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM). Many systematic reviews have reported on CGM's effectiveness, but with heterogeneous methodologies and objectives. We aim to conduct an umbrella review (UR) to consolidate a most contemporaneous and comprehensive evidence base comparing CGM with self-monitoring of blood glucose or usual care (SMBG/UC).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, Epistemonikos, SCOPUS, Web of Science and PubMed were searched from their dates of inception to 28th June 2024. Systematic reviews (SR) with or without meta-analyses comparing the use of CGM with SMBG or usual care (UC) for T2DM management in patients treated with or without insulin were included. Narrative synthesis of HbA1c, glycemic variability metrics and other physical measurements were done. Corrected covered area (CCA) was calculated to assess suitability of meta-meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>31 SRs were included in this UR. There was high overlap within meta-analyses of HbA1c, time-in-range (TIR), time-above-range (TAR) and time-below-range (TBR). A primary study-level meta-analysis demonstrated that compared to SMBG/UC, CGM was associated with significantly greater HbA1c decrease (n = 11,494, MD = -0.40% [95% CI: -0.54 to -0.25]), TIR increase (n = 1452, MD = 6.00% [95%CI: 3.13 to 8.88]) and TAR decrease (n = 1113, MD = -4.33% [95%CI: -8.37 to -0.28]).These findings were invariant with CGM modality, study funding, pre-existing insulin treatment and risk-of-bias. Meta-analysis of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) demonstrated insignificant differences in PROMs with CGM use compared to SMBG/UC.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>CGM could lead to better clinical outcomes than SMBG/UC and was of moderate evidence certainty (GRADE), while its effect on PROMs remains inconclusive. We recommend the introduction of CGM into standard care alongside SMBG for T2DM and further research exploring patient experience and acceptability of CGM use.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48578,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of Public Health\",\"volume\":\"82 1\",\"pages\":\"231\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11610123/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of Public Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13690-024-01459-2\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13690-024-01459-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
Effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring in patient management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: an umbrella review of systematic reviews from 2011 to 2024.
Background: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is increasingly popular for managing Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM). Many systematic reviews have reported on CGM's effectiveness, but with heterogeneous methodologies and objectives. We aim to conduct an umbrella review (UR) to consolidate a most contemporaneous and comprehensive evidence base comparing CGM with self-monitoring of blood glucose or usual care (SMBG/UC).
Methods: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, Epistemonikos, SCOPUS, Web of Science and PubMed were searched from their dates of inception to 28th June 2024. Systematic reviews (SR) with or without meta-analyses comparing the use of CGM with SMBG or usual care (UC) for T2DM management in patients treated with or without insulin were included. Narrative synthesis of HbA1c, glycemic variability metrics and other physical measurements were done. Corrected covered area (CCA) was calculated to assess suitability of meta-meta-analysis.
Results: 31 SRs were included in this UR. There was high overlap within meta-analyses of HbA1c, time-in-range (TIR), time-above-range (TAR) and time-below-range (TBR). A primary study-level meta-analysis demonstrated that compared to SMBG/UC, CGM was associated with significantly greater HbA1c decrease (n = 11,494, MD = -0.40% [95% CI: -0.54 to -0.25]), TIR increase (n = 1452, MD = 6.00% [95%CI: 3.13 to 8.88]) and TAR decrease (n = 1113, MD = -4.33% [95%CI: -8.37 to -0.28]).These findings were invariant with CGM modality, study funding, pre-existing insulin treatment and risk-of-bias. Meta-analysis of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) demonstrated insignificant differences in PROMs with CGM use compared to SMBG/UC.
Conclusion: CGM could lead to better clinical outcomes than SMBG/UC and was of moderate evidence certainty (GRADE), while its effect on PROMs remains inconclusive. We recommend the introduction of CGM into standard care alongside SMBG for T2DM and further research exploring patient experience and acceptability of CGM use.
期刊介绍：
rchives of Public Health is a broad scope public health journal, dedicated to publishing all sound science in the field of public health. The journal aims to better the understanding of the health of populations. The journal contributes to public health knowledge, enhances the interaction between research, policy and practice and stimulates public health monitoring and indicator development. The journal considers submissions on health outcomes and their determinants, with clear statements about the public health and policy implications. Archives of Public Health welcomes methodological papers (e.g., on study design and bias), papers on health services research, health economics, community interventions, and epidemiological studies dealing with international comparisons, the determinants of inequality in health, and the environmental, behavioural, social, demographic and occupational correlates of health and diseases.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
