↓ Skip to main content

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) on glucose control in diabetes

Overview of attention for article published in Diabetology & Metabolic Syndrome, July 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#42 of 372)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
124 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) on glucose control in diabetes
Published in
Diabetology & Metabolic Syndrome, July 2013
DOI 10.1186/1758-5996-5-39
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nalinee Poolsup, Naeti Suksomboon, Aye Mon Kyaw

Abstract

Diabetes mellitus is a chronic disease that necessitates continuing treatment and patient self-care education. Monitoring of blood glucose to near normal level without hypoglycemia becomes a challenge in the management of diabetes. Although self monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) can provide daily monitoring of blood glucose level and help to adjust therapy, it cannot detect hypoglycemic unawareness and nocturnal hypoglycemia which occurred mostly in T1DM pediatrics. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) offers continuous glucose data every 5 minutes to adjust insulin therapy especially for T1DM patients and to monitor lifestyle intervention especially for T2DM patients by care providers or even patients themselves. The main objective of this study was to assess the effects of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) on glycemic control in Type 1 diabetic pediatrics and Type 2 diabetic adults by collecting randomized controlled trials from MEDLINE (pubmed), SCOPUS, CINAHL, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library up to May 2013 and historical search through the reference lists of relevant articles. There are two types of CGM device: real-time CGM and retrospective CGM and both types of the device were included in the analysis. In T1DM pediatrics, CGM use was no more effective than SMBG in reducing HbA1c [mean difference - 0.13% (95% CI -0.38% to 0.11%,]. This effect was independent of HbA1c level at baseline. Subgroup analysis indicated that retrospective CGM was not superior to SMBG [mean difference -0.05% (95% CI -0.46% to 0.35%)]. In contrast, real-time CGM revealed better effect in lowering HbA1c level compared with SMBG [mean difference -0.18% (95% CI -0.35% to -0.02%, p = 0.02)]. In T2DM adults, significant reduction in HbA1c level was detected with CGM compared with SMBG [mean difference - 0.31% (95% CI -0.6% to -0.02%, p = 0.04)]. This systematic review and meta-analysis suggested that real-time CGM can be more effective than SMBG in T1DM pediatrics, though retrospective CGM was not. CGM provided better glycemic control in T2DM adults compared with SMBG.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 124 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 118 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 17 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 14%
Student > Bachelor 17 14%
Student > Master 17 14%
Researcher 15 12%
Other 30 24%
Unknown 11 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 57 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 8%
Engineering 9 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Sports and Recreations 5 4%
Other 21 17%
Unknown 17 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 January 2018.
All research outputs
#1,441,328
of 12,380,418 outputs
Outputs from Diabetology & Metabolic Syndrome
#42
of 372 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,292
of 164,038 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diabetology & Metabolic Syndrome
#1
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,380,418 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 372 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 164,038 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.