See the published version of this preprint at Systematic Reviews.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Protocol
Mingyue Zheng
The University of Adelaide Adelaide Medical School
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7946-8911
Peng Hu
Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine
Corresponding Author
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background: Continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) have been used to manage diabetes with reasonable glucose control among patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in recent decades. CGM systems measure interstitial fluid glucose levels to provide information about glucose levels, which identifies fluctuation that would not have been identified with conventional self-monitoring. Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) is a classical tool to achieve glycaemic control. However, the effectiveness of glucose control, costs, and quality of life are needed to evaluate and compare CGM and SMBG among adults with T2D.
Methods: The review will compare the various forms of CGM systems (i.e flash-CGM, real-time-CGM, retrospective-CGM) versus SMBG/usual intervention regarding diabetes management among adults with T2D. The following databases will be searched: Cochrane Library, Science Direct, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus and grey literature for the identification of studies. The studies involving adults (aged ≥ 18 years old) will be included. We will include and summararize randomised clinical trials (RCTs) with respect to authors, publication type, year, status, and type of devices. Studies published in English between February 2010 and March 2020 will be included as the field of CGMs among T2D patients has emerged over the last decade. Primary outcomes that will be measured will be; HbA1c, body weight, time spent with hypoglycaemia or hyperglycaemia, blood pressure, quality of life. Secondary outcome measured will be morbidity, all-cause mortality, user satisfaction, and barriers. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment will be conducted independently by at least two authors. A third author will determine and resolve discrepancies. Moreover, the quality of the evidence of the review will be assessed according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Tool (GRADE).
Discussion: The systematic review will synthesise evidence on the comparison between using CGMs and SMBG. The results will support researchers and health care professionals to determine the most effective methods/technologies in the overall diabetes management. Moreover, this review will provide more detailed information about the barriers of using CGMs to improve implementation.
Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42020149212
Keywords
Type 2 diabetes, Continuous glucose monitor, Self monitoring of blood glucose, Health technology assessment, Diabetes management, Systematic review
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at Systematic Reviews.
Version 1
Posted 16 Mar, 2020
No community comments so far
Editor assigned
On 13 Mar, 2020
Editor invited
On 12 Mar, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 11 Mar, 2020
First submitted
On 10 Mar, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Endocrinology & Metabolism
Learn more about our company.
See the published version of this preprint at Systematic Reviews.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Protocol
Mingyue Zheng
The University of Adelaide Adelaide Medical School
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7946-8911
Peng Hu
Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine
Corresponding Author
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at Systematic Reviews.
Version 1
Posted 16 Mar, 2020
No community comments so far
Editor assigned
On 13 Mar, 2020
Editor invited
On 12 Mar, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 11 Mar, 2020
First submitted
On 10 Mar, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Endocrinology & Metabolism
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at Systematic Reviews.
Background: Continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) have been used to manage diabetes with reasonable glucose control among patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in recent decades. CGM systems measure interstitial fluid glucose levels to provide information about glucose levels, which identifies fluctuation that would not have been identified with conventional self-monitoring. Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) is a classical tool to achieve glycaemic control. However, the effectiveness of glucose control, costs, and quality of life are needed to evaluate and compare CGM and SMBG among adults with T2D.
Methods: The review will compare the various forms of CGM systems (i.e flash-CGM, real-time-CGM, retrospective-CGM) versus SMBG/usual intervention regarding diabetes management among adults with T2D. The following databases will be searched: Cochrane Library, Science Direct, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus and grey literature for the identification of studies. The studies involving adults (aged ≥ 18 years old) will be included. We will include and summararize randomised clinical trials (RCTs) with respect to authors, publication type, year, status, and type of devices. Studies published in English between February 2010 and March 2020 will be included as the field of CGMs among T2D patients has emerged over the last decade. Primary outcomes that will be measured will be; HbA1c, body weight, time spent with hypoglycaemia or hyperglycaemia, blood pressure, quality of life. Secondary outcome measured will be morbidity, all-cause mortality, user satisfaction, and barriers. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment will be conducted independently by at least two authors. A third author will determine and resolve discrepancies. Moreover, the quality of the evidence of the review will be assessed according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Tool (GRADE).
Discussion: The systematic review will synthesise evidence on the comparison between using CGMs and SMBG. The results will support researchers and health care professionals to determine the most effective methods/technologies in the overall diabetes management. Moreover, this review will provide more detailed information about the barriers of using CGMs to improve implementation.
Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42020149212
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...