Journal of cystic fibrosis : official journal of the European Cystic Fibrosis Society · 2022
Continuous glucose monitoring versus self-monitoring of blood glucose in the management of cystic fibrosis related diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
МетаанализСистематический обзорСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kumar Shanal, Soldatos Georgia, Ranasinha Sanjeeva, Teede Helena, Pallin Michael
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Treatment of cystic fibrosis related diabetes (CFRD) can improve outcomes and use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) can positively impact glycemic control. We conducted a systematic review to assess current evidence on CGM compared to self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in the management of CFRD to determine its effect on glycemic, pulmonary, non-pulmonary and quality of life outcomes.
METHODS: Using pre-defined selection criteria, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews, grey literature and six relevant journals for studies using CGM and/or SMBG in CFRD with greater than 6 weeks of follow-up and reported change in HbA1c. The primary outcome was weighted mean difference (WMD) in plasma HbA1c between CGM and SMBG groups. Secondary outcomes included exploring interrelationships between CGM metrics and effects on disease-specific pulmonary, non-pulmonary and quality of life outcomes.
RESULTS: A total of 1671 references were retrieved, 862 studies screened and 124 full-texts assessed for eligibility. No studies directly compared CGM to SMBG. A meta-analysis of seventeen studies of 416 individuals (CGM = 138, SMBG = 278) found CGM group had 4.1 mmol/mol (95% CI -7.9 to -0.30, p = 0.034) lower HbA1c compared to SMBG group. Most studies demonstrated moderate-to-high risk of bias. Publication bias was also present. Heterogeneity was high and meta-regression identified duration of follow-up in SMBG group as main contributor.
CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest use of CGM may be associated with improved glycemic control compared to SMBG in CFRD, however evidence of benefit on pulmonary, non-pulmonary and psychosocial outcomes are lacking.
METHODS: Using pre-defined selection criteria, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews, grey literature and six relevant journals for studies using CGM and/or SMBG in CFRD with greater than 6 weeks of follow-up and reported change in HbA1c. The primary outcome was weighted mean difference (WMD) in plasma HbA1c between CGM and SMBG groups. Secondary outcomes included exploring interrelationships between CGM metrics and effects on disease-specific pulmonary, non-pulmonary and quality of life outcomes.
RESULTS: A total of 1671 references were retrieved, 862 studies screened and 124 full-texts assessed for eligibility. No studies directly compared CGM to SMBG. A meta-analysis of seventeen studies of 416 individuals (CGM = 138, SMBG = 278) found CGM group had 4.1 mmol/mol (95% CI -7.9 to -0.30, p = 0.034) lower HbA1c compared to SMBG group. Most studies demonstrated moderate-to-high risk of bias. Publication bias was also present. Heterogeneity was high and meta-regression identified duration of follow-up in SMBG group as main contributor.
CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest use of CGM may be associated with improved glycemic control compared to SMBG in CFRD, however evidence of benefit on pulmonary, non-pulmonary and psychosocial outcomes are lacking.