Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/194147
Title: Effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring on glycaemic control in Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Authors: TEO HUI MIN EVELYN
Keywords: Continuous glucose monitoring
Glycaemic control
Meta-analysis
Type 1 diabetes
Issue Date: 31-May-2021
Citation: TEO HUI MIN EVELYN (2021-05-31). Effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring on glycaemic control in Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: A systematic review and meta-analysis. ScholarBank@NUS Repository.
Abstract: Background: The goal for Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) population is to maintain a near-normal glucose level. Self-monitoring blood glucose (SMBG) is a conventional finger-prick test which measures one’s blood glucose whereas continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) measures one’s interstitial glucose level every few minutes. However, insufficient studies were done to include the latest CGM technologies on glycaemic control amongst T1DM population. Objective: To assess the effectiveness of CGM as compared to SMBG for glycaemic control in T1DM population. Methods: Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, trial registries and grey literature were searched from 9 June 2011 till 22 December 2020 for randomised controlled trials comparing CGM intervention against SMBG control among T1DM population on HbA1c, severe hypoglycaemia (SH) and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) outcomes. Data were extracted with standardised data extraction form. Risk of bias was appraised with Cochrane Risk of bias tool. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan software. Heterogeneity was evaluated using Chi² and I² statistics. Overall effects and certainty of evidence were evaluated using Z-statistic and GRADE. Results: 22 studies involving 2,188 T1DM individuals were identified. Most studies had low-risk bias. Meta-analysis of 21 studies revealed CGM significantly decreased HbA1c level compared to SMBG (Z=3.5, P=0.0005) with larger effects experienced in higher baseline HbA1c (>8%) individuals (Z=6.67, P<0.00001). However, CGM had no influence on SH (P=0.06) and DKA (P=0.88). Certainty of evidence was moderate. Conclusion: CGM is superior to SMBG in improving glycaemic control among T1DM population especially poor glycaemic controlled individuals. Results must be interpreted with discretion due to substantial heterogeneity. Implication: T1DM individuals are encouraged to use CGM. With possible integration with telemedicine, CGM may provide an effective diabetes management approach in the community. Future research can evaluate CGM effectiveness across different age groups and insulin regimens.
URI: https://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/194147
Appears in Collections:Bachelor's Theses

Show full item record
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormatAccess SettingsVersion 
TEO HUI MIN EVELYN_A0173857N.pdf5.42 MBAdobe PDF

RESTRICTED

NoneLog In

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.