Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Non-ICU Hospitalized Adults with Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review

<b>Background</b>: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) may overcome the limitations of intermittent point-of-care (POC) testing by providing real-time glucose trends and reducing treatment delays. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of CGM versus POC capillary testing in improving glycemic control among hospitalized non-Intensive Care Unit (non-ICU) adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). <b>Methods</b>: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. We searched PubMed for randomized controlled trials published in English or Spanish that compared CGM with POC testing in hospitalized non-ICU adults ≥ 18 years old with T2DM and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane RoB2 tool. The primary outcome was time in range (TIR). Secondary outcomes included time below range (TBR), time above range (TAR), mean glucose (MG), and glycemic variability (GV). <b>Results</b>: Seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including 1106 patients were analyzed. CGM significantly improved TIR (mean difference [MD] +8.15%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: +5.76, +10.55; <i>p</i> < 0.001) and reduced TAR > 180 mg/dL (MD -7.11%; 95% CI: -9.43, -4.78; <i>p</i> < 0.001) and TAR > 250 mg/dL (MD -3.96%; 95% CI: -5.29, -2.62; <i>p</i> < 0.001) compared with POC testing. MG also decreased with CGM (MD -11.27 mg/dL; 95% CI: -14.74, -7.81; <i>p</i> < 0.001). A modest reduction in TBR <70 mg/dL was observed (MD -0.29%; <i>p</i> < 0.001), whereas no significant differences were found for TBR < 54 mg/dL or GV. <b>Conclusions</b>: CGM improves inpatient glycemic control in non-ICU adults with type 2 diabetes, demonstrating advantages over POC testing across multiple randomized trials. However, further multicenter research is needed to clarify workflow implications, cost-effectiveness, and optimal implementation strategies.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Published
2025-12-20
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm15010034
Primary Topic
Hyperglycemia and glycemic control in critically ill and hospitalized patients
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Non-ICU Hospitalized Adults with Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review

Matilde Rubio-Almanza, Juan Francisco Merino-Torres, David Sanchis-Pascual, Pilar Masdeu-López-Cerón et al.
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Hyperglycemia and glycemic control in critically ill and hospitalized patients
article

Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Non-ICU Hospitalized Adults with Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review

Matilde Rubio-Almanza, Juan Francisco Merino-Torres, David Sanchis-Pascual, Pilar Masdeu-López-Cerón, Víctor Pérez-Cervantes, Darío Lara-Gálvez, Yolanda Aparicio-Ródenas
article en

Abstract

<b>Background</b>: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) may overcome the limitations of intermittent point-of-care (POC) testing by providing real-time glucose trends and reducing treatment delays. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of CGM versus POC capillary testing in improving glycemic control among hospitalized non-Intensive Care Unit (non-ICU) adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). <b>Methods</b>: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. We searched PubMed for randomized controlled trials published in English or Spanish that compared CGM with POC testing in hospitalized non-ICU adults ≥ 18 years old with T2DM and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane RoB2 tool. The primary outcome was time in range (TIR). Secondary outcomes included time below range (TBR), time above range (TAR), mean glucose (MG), and glycemic variability (GV). <b>Results</b>: Seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including 1106 patients were analyzed. CGM significantly improved TIR (mean difference [MD] +8.15%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: +5.76, +10.55; <i>p</i> < 0.001) and reduced TAR > 180 mg/dL (MD -7.11%; 95% CI: -9.43, -4.78; <i>p</i> < 0.001) and TAR > 250 mg/dL (MD -3.96%; 95% CI: -5.29, -2.62; <i>p</i> < 0.001) compared with POC testing. MG also decreased with CGM (MD -11.27 mg/dL; 95% CI: -14.74, -7.81; <i>p</i> < 0.001). A modest reduction in TBR <70 mg/dL was observed (MD -0.29%; <i>p</i> < 0.001), whereas no significant differences were found for TBR < 54 mg/dL or GV. <b>Conclusions</b>: CGM improves inpatient glycemic control in non-ICU adults with type 2 diabetes, demonstrating advantages over POC testing across multiple randomized trials. However, further multicenter research is needed to clarify workflow implications, cost-effectiveness, and optimal implementation strategies.

Journal of Clinical MedicineVol. 15(1)
Universitat de València (ES), Hospital Universitari i Politècnic La Fe (ES), Hospital Clínico Universitario de Valencia (ES), Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria La Fe (ES)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 31%
Hyperglycemia and glycemic control in critically ill and hospitalized patients
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.