Comparing the glycaemic outcomes between real‐time continuous glucose monitoring (rt‐CGM) and intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) among adults and children with type 1 diabetes: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials

Aim To conduct a systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effectiveness of real‐time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) versus intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) on key glycaemic metrics (co‐primary outcomes HbA1c and time‐...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Diabetic medicine 2024-03, Vol.41 (3), p.e15280-n/a
Hauptverfasser: Zhou, Yongwen, Sardana, Divesh, Kuroko, Sarahmarie, Haszard, Jillian J., Block, Martin I., Weng, Jianping, Jefferies, Craig, Wheeler, Benjamin John
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Aim To conduct a systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effectiveness of real‐time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) versus intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) on key glycaemic metrics (co‐primary outcomes HbA1c and time‐in‐range [TIR] 70–180 mg/dL, 3.9–10.0 mmol/L) among people with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Methods Medline, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of clinical trials were searched. Inclusion criteria were RCTs; T1D populations of any age and insulin regimen; comparing any type of rtCGM with isCGM (only the first generation had been compared to date); and reporting the glycaemic outcomes. Glycaemic outcomes were extracted post‐intervention and expressed as mean differences and 95% CIs between the two comparators. Results were pooled using a random‐effect meta‐analysis. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB2 tool. The quality of evidence was assessed by the GRADE approach. Results Five RCTs met the inclusion criteria (4 parallel and 1 crossover design; 4 with CGM use
ISSN:0742-3071
1464-5491
DOI:10.1111/dme.15280