About this item:

376 Views | 0 Downloads

Author Notes:

Corresponding Author: Guillermo E. Umpierrez, M.D., Emory University School of Medicine, Grady Health System, 49 Jesse Hill Jr. Drive, Atlanta, GA 30303. Email: geumpie@emory.edu.

The authors thank Jackie Ali and Dr. Alexander Quarshie from the Master of Science in Clinical Research Program, Rondereo Sidney from the Atlanta Clinical and Translational Science Institute, Gwinnett Bates and Catherine Williams-Parker of the Morehouse School of Medicine Library, and the staff of the Clinical Research Center.


Research Funding:

This study was supported by Grant Numbers U54 RR026137, 2R25RR017694-06A1, UL1 RR025008, TL1 RR025010, and 5P20RR011104 from the National Center for Research Resources, a component of the National Institutes of Health.

Dr. Umpierrez is supported by research grants from the American Diabetes Association (7-03-CR-35) and National Institutes of Health (UL1 RR025008; Atlanta Clinical and Translational Science Institute).


  • glucose monitoring
  • meta-analysis
  • monitoring device
  • type 1 diabetes

Comparative Analysis of the Efficacy of Continuous Glucose Monitoring and Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose in Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus


Journal Title:

Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology


Volume 6, Number 5


, Pages 1094-1102

Type of Work:

Article | Post-print: After Peer Review


Background: Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) have been proven effective in improving hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and in reducing hypoglycemia in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). It is not clear, however, if CGM provides further efficacy and safety benefits beyond SMBG in the management of T1DM. Methods: MEDLINE (1966–November 2009), COCHRANE REGISTRY (all years), and EMBASE (1980–November 2009), and article bibliographies were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the use of CGM in patients with T1DM, with clinical outcomes, including HbA1c and hypoglycemia and/or hyperglycemia. Results: Fourteen RCTs met eligibility criteria [n = 1188 patients, 97.4% with T1DM, age 29.0 ± 14.3 years, diabetes duration 11.7 ± 7.0 years, and baseline HbA1c 8.3 ± 0.8% (mean ± standard deviation)]. Compared with SMBG, the use of CGM was associated with a greater reduction in HbA1c [-0.3% (confidence interval: 0.4, -0.2), p < .0001]. The number of hypoglycemic events was not significantly different between the CGM and SMBG groups (0.52 ± 0.52 versus 0.52 ± 0.63 events/day, p = .5), but duration of hypoglycemia was shorter for the CGM group (75 ± 39 versus 89 ± 19 min/day), with an incremental reduction of hypoglycemia duration of -15.2 min/day, p < .0001. Continuous glucose monitoring also resulted in a shorter duration of hyperglycemia than SMBG (172 ± 125 versus 217 ± 152 min/day, p = .04). Conclusions: The use of CGM is associated with improvement in metabolic control in T1DM, with significant short- and long-term reductions in HbA1c and reduction in the duration of periods of hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia versus SMBG.

Copyright information:

© 2012 Diabetes Technology Society

Export to EndNote