Continuous glucose monitoring in prediabetes: a bibliometric analysis of research trends, thematic mapping, and evidence gaps

Purpose Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is increasingly studied beyond established diabetes, including prediabetes and other intermediate hyperglycemic states. This study mapped the scientific literature at this intersection and characterized publication patterns, collaboration, citation structure, and thematic organization. Methods PubMed and Scopus were searched with a cutoff reported as May 20, 2026. After deduplication and title/abstract screening, 212 potentially eligible reports underwent full-text assessment; 176 publications met the final eligibility criteria. Descriptive and thematic analyses were conducted on the complete corpus. Citation- and reference-based indicators were calculated separately for the 169 included publications indexed in Scopus. Author Keywords were harmonized with a documented synonym dictionary before conceptual analyses. Results The 176 included publications spanned 1994-2026, 95 sources, and 1,221 authors. Publication output increased markedly after 2020 and reached 44 publications in 2025; 2026 was incomplete at the search cutoff. The leading sources were Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology (n=22) and Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics (n=13). The most frequent harmonized Author Keywords were continuous glucose monitoring (n=90), prediabetes (n=67), diabetes (n=25), glycemic variability (n=23), and type 2 diabetes (n=21). The keyword co-occurrence network contained 46 connected terms in four clusters. In the Scopus subset, international co-authorship was 22.49%, and corresponding-author publications were led by the United States (n=63), Japan (n=15), China (n=10), and Germany (n=9). Conclusion The literature on CGM and prediabetes has expanded substantially and is organized around a core linking CGM, prediabetes, glycemic variability, and related metabolic and digital-health topics. This bibliometric analysis maps research activity and evidence gaps; it does not establish the clinical effectiveness, preventive benefit, behavioral effectiveness, or cost-effectiveness of CGM in people with prediabetes.