OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) on glycaemic control in non-insulin treated patients with type 2 diabetes by means of a systematic review and meta-analysis. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: MEDLINE and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched from inception to January 2009 for randomised controlled trials comparing SMBG with non-SMBG or more frequent SMBG with less intensive SMBG. Electronic searches were supplemented by manual searching of reference lists and reviews. The comparison of SMBG with non-SMBG was the primary, the comparison of more frequent SMBG with less intensive SMBG the secondary analysis. Stratified analyses were performed to evaluate modifying factors. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary endpoint was glycated haemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)), secondary outcomes included fasting glucose and the occurrence of hypoglycaemia. Using random effects models a weighted mean difference (WMD) was calculated for HbA(1c) and a risk ratio (RR) was calculated for hypoglycaemia. Due to considerable heterogeneity, no combined estimate was computed for fasting glucose. RESULTS: Fifteen trials (3270 patients) were included in the analyses. SMBG was associated with a larger reduction in HbA(1c) compared with non-SMBG (WMD -0.31%, 95% confidence interval -0.44 to -0.17). The beneficial effect associated with SMBG was not attenuated over longer follow-up. SMBG significantly increased the probability of detecting a hypoglycaemia (RR 2.10, 1.37 to 3.22). More frequent SMBG did not result in significant changes of HbA(1c) compared with less intensive SMBG (WMD -0.21%, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.15). CONCLUSIONS: SMBG compared with non-SMBG is associated with a significantly improved glycaemic control in non-insulin treated patients with type 2 diabetes. The added value of more frequent SMBG compared with less intensive SMBG remains uncertain.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) on glycaemic control in non-insulin treated patients with type 2 diabetes by means of a systematic review and meta-analysis. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: MEDLINE and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched from inception to January 2009 for randomised controlled trials comparing SMBG with non-SMBG or more frequent SMBG with less intensive SMBG. Electronic searches were supplemented by manual searching of reference lists and reviews. The comparison of SMBG with non-SMBG was the primary, the comparison of more frequent SMBG with less intensive SMBG the secondary analysis. Stratified analyses were performed to evaluate modifying factors. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary endpoint was glycated haemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)), secondary outcomes included fasting glucose and the occurrence of hypoglycaemia. Using random effects models a weighted mean difference (WMD) was calculated for HbA(1c) and a risk ratio (RR) was calculated for hypoglycaemia. Due to considerable heterogeneity, no combined estimate was computed for fasting glucose. RESULTS: Fifteen trials (3270 patients) were included in the analyses. SMBG was associated with a larger reduction in HbA(1c) compared with non-SMBG (WMD -0.31%, 95% confidence interval -0.44 to -0.17). The beneficial effect associated with SMBG was not attenuated over longer follow-up. SMBG significantly increased the probability of detecting a hypoglycaemia (RR 2.10, 1.37 to 3.22). More frequent SMBG did not result in significant changes of HbA(1c) compared with less intensive SMBG (WMD -0.21%, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.15). CONCLUSIONS: SMBG compared with non-SMBG is associated with a significantly improved glycaemic control in non-insulin treated patients with type 2 diabetes. The added value of more frequent SMBG compared with less intensive SMBG remains uncertain.
Authors: Mary Ann Sevick; Mary Korytkowski; Roslyn A Stone; Beth Piraino; Dianxu Ren; Susan Sereika; Yuanyuan Wang; Ann Steenkiste; Lora E Burke Journal: J Acad Nutr Diet Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 4.910
Authors: David B Sacks; Mark Arnold; George L Bakris; David E Bruns; Andrea Rita Horvath; M Sue Kirkman; Ake Lernmark; Boyd E Metzger; David M Nathan Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Sarah E Linke; Britta A Larsen; Becky Marquez; Andrea Mendoza-Vasconez; Bess H Marcus Journal: Prog Cardiovasc Dis Date: 2016-03-06 Impact factor: 8.194
Authors: Oliver Schnell; Hasan Alawi; Tadej Battelino; Antonio Ceriello; Peter Diem; Anne-Marie Felton; Wladyslaw Grzeszczak; Kari Harno; Peter Kempler; Ilhan Satman; Bruno Vergès Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2013-03-01