Evidence Hub

Efficacy of continuous glucose monitoring in comparison to self-blood glucose monitoring in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus under insulin treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Zhu J, Zhang L

BMC endocrine disorders, 2026

1,550 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Diabetes Mellitus (DM) affects approximately 10.5% of the global population, necessitating effective glucose monitoring to mitigate complications. Self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) lacks dynamic glycemic profiling, while continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) provides real-time/intermittent data. This review compares CGM and SMBG in insulin-treated type 2 diabetes (T2DM) patients. METHOD: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus was conducted until May 2025 and included RCTs compared CGM with SMBG in terms of glycemic indices in adults with T2DM on insulin therapy (± oral agents), excluding studies < 6 weeks or non-insulin treatments. Meta-analysis using a random-effect model was performed. RESULTS: Thirteen RCTs (n = 1550) were included. CGM significantly reduced HbA1c (mean difference [MD] = − 2.78 mmol/mol, 95% CI: −4.68 to − 0.88) and TBR (MD = − 1.30%, 95% CI: −1.94 to − 0.65) versus SMBG. TAR reduction (MD = − 4.12%, 95% CI: −9.11 to 0.88) and TIR increase (MD = 4.04%, 95% CI: −0.09 to 8.17) were non-significant. Substantial heterogeneity in HbA1c (I²=89.66%) persisted despite subgroup analyses based on CGM type. DISCUSSION: CGM improves long-term glucose control (HbA1c) and hypoglycemia risk (TBR) in insulin-treated T2DM, supporting its clinical utility. Non-significant TIR/TAR trends may reflect limited statistical power. Future studies are warranted to delineate the outcome…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 1,550 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free