D T Golicki1, D Golicka, L Groele, E Pankowska. 1. Department of Pharmacoeconomics, Medical University of Warsaw, ul. Pawinskiego 3A, 02-106, Warsaw, Poland. dgolicki@amwaw.edu.pl
Abstract
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: We investigated the potential effects of the Continuous Glucose Monitoring System (CGMS), as compared with self-monitoring of blood glucose, on glycaemic control in children with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: The following electronic databases were searched throughout June 2007: MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library. Additional references were obtained from reviewed articles. Only randomised controlled trials were included. RESULTS: We included five trials involving 131 type 1 diabetic patients in the study. Combined data from all trials showed that the CGMS did not significantly reduce HbA1c levels compared with control groups. The pooled weighted mean difference was -0.02% (95% CI -0.29 to 0.25) with a fixed model and remained insignificant in the random effect model. Sensitivity analysis determined that the findings were stable. There was a trend towards a longer time under the CGMS curve for glucose <3.89 mmol/l in the CGMS group compared with the control group (mean difference 49.00 min, 95% CI -18.00 to 116.00). The CGMS significantly increased the number of insulin dose changes per patient per month for those managed with CGMS compared with the control groups (mean difference 6.3 changes, 95% CI 2.88-9.72). CONCLUSIONS/ INTERPRETATION: The Continuous Glucose Monitoring System is not better than self-monitoring of blood glucose with regard to improvement of metabolic control among type 1 diabetic children. However, due to the small number of participants and methodological limitations of the studies included, findings of this meta-analysis should be interpreted with caution.
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: We investigated the potential effects of the Continuous Glucose Monitoring System (CGMS), as compared with self-monitoring of blood glucose, on glycaemic control in children with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: The following electronic databases were searched throughout June 2007: MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library. Additional references were obtained from reviewed articles. Only randomised controlled trials were included. RESULTS: We included five trials involving 131 type 1 diabeticpatients in the study. Combined data from all trials showed that the CGMS did not significantly reduce HbA1c levels compared with control groups. The pooled weighted mean difference was -0.02% (95% CI -0.29 to 0.25) with a fixed model and remained insignificant in the random effect model. Sensitivity analysis determined that the findings were stable. There was a trend towards a longer time under the CGMS curve for glucose <3.89 mmol/l in the CGMS group compared with the control group (mean difference 49.00 min, 95% CI -18.00 to 116.00). The CGMS significantly increased the number of insulin dose changes per patient per month for those managed with CGMS compared with the control groups (mean difference 6.3 changes, 95% CI 2.88-9.72). CONCLUSIONS/ INTERPRETATION: The Continuous Glucose Monitoring System is not better than self-monitoring of blood glucose with regard to improvement of metabolic control among type 1 diabeticchildren. However, due to the small number of participants and methodological limitations of the studies included, findings of this meta-analysis should be interpreted with caution.
Authors: Andreas Pfützner; Andreas Caduff; Martin Larbig; Thomas Schrepfer; Thomas Forst Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: H Peter Chase; Roy Beck; William Tamborlane; Bruce Buckingham; Nelly Mauras; Eva Tsalikian; Tim Wysocki; Stuart Weinzimer; Craig Kollman; Katrina Ruedy; Dongyuan Xing Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Richard L Weinstein; Sherwyn L Schwartz; Ronald L Brazg; Jolyon R Bugler; Thomas A Peyser; Geoffrey V McGarraugh Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2007-03-02 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: John R Petrie; Anne L Peters; Richard M Bergenstal; Reinhard W Holl; G Alexander Fleming; Lutz Heinemann Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2017-10-25 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Alberto de Leiva; María Elena Hernando; M Rigla; I Capel; E Brugués; B Pons; L Erdozain; A Prados; R Corcoy; E J Gómez; G García-Sáez; I Martínez-Sarriegui; A Rodríguez-Herrero; C Pérez-Gandía; F del Pozo Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 19.112