Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2022
Effect of divergent continuous glucose monitoring technologies on glycaemic control in type 1 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорПоддержка 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.
Elbalshy Mona, Haszard Jillian, Smith Hazel, Kuroko Sarahmarie, Galland Barbara, Oliver Nick, Shah Viral, de Bock Martin I, Wheeler Benjamin J
Аннотация
AIMS: We aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) assessing separately and together the effect of the three distinct categories of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems (adjunctive, non-adjunctive and intermittently-scanned CGM [isCGM]), compared with traditional capillary glucose monitoring, on HbA1c and CGM metrics.
METHODS: PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and Cochrane Central register of clinical trials were searched. Inclusion criteria were as follows: randomised controlled trials; participants with type 1 diabetes of any age and insulin regimen; investigating CGM and isCGM compared with traditional capillary glucose monitoring; and reporting glycaemic outcomes of HbA1c and/or time-in-range (TIR). Glycaemic outcomes were extracted post-intervention and expressed as mean differences and 95%CIs between treatment and comparator groups. Results were pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Rob2 tool.
RESULTS: This systematic review was conducted between January and April 2021; it included 22 RCTs (15 adjunctive, 5 non-adjunctive, and 2 isCGM)). The overall analysis of the pooled three categories showed a statistically significant absolute improvement in HbA1c percentage points (mean difference (95% CI): -0.22% [-0.31 to -0.14], I2 = 79%) for intervention compared with comparator and was strongest for adjunctive CGM (-0.26% [-0.36, -0.16]). Overall TIR (absolute change) increased by 5.4% (3.5 to 7.2), I2 = 71% for CGM intervention compared with comparator and was strongest with non-adjunctive CGM (6.0% [2.3, 9.7]).
CONCLUSIONS: For individuals with T1D, use of CGM was beneficial for impacting glycaemic outcomes including HbA1c, TIR and time-below-range (TBR). Glycaemic improvement appeared greater for TIR for newer non-adjunctive CGM technology.
METHODS: PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and Cochrane Central register of clinical trials were searched. Inclusion criteria were as follows: randomised controlled trials; participants with type 1 diabetes of any age and insulin regimen; investigating CGM and isCGM compared with traditional capillary glucose monitoring; and reporting glycaemic outcomes of HbA1c and/or time-in-range (TIR). Glycaemic outcomes were extracted post-intervention and expressed as mean differences and 95%CIs between treatment and comparator groups. Results were pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Rob2 tool.
RESULTS: This systematic review was conducted between January and April 2021; it included 22 RCTs (15 adjunctive, 5 non-adjunctive, and 2 isCGM)). The overall analysis of the pooled three categories showed a statistically significant absolute improvement in HbA1c percentage points (mean difference (95% CI): -0.22% [-0.31 to -0.14], I2 = 79%) for intervention compared with comparator and was strongest for adjunctive CGM (-0.26% [-0.36, -0.16]). Overall TIR (absolute change) increased by 5.4% (3.5 to 7.2), I2 = 71% for CGM intervention compared with comparator and was strongest with non-adjunctive CGM (6.0% [2.3, 9.7]).
CONCLUSIONS: For individuals with T1D, use of CGM was beneficial for impacting glycaemic outcomes including HbA1c, TIR and time-below-range (TBR). Glycaemic improvement appeared greater for TIR for newer non-adjunctive CGM technology.