[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-461524-105":59,"doc-detail-461524-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","continuous-glucose-monitoring-in-non-icu-hospitalized-adults-with-type-2-diabetes-a-systematic-review","Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Non-ICU Hospitalized Adults with Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review","","Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) may address the drawbacks of intermittent point-of-care (POC) capillary testing by delivering real-time glucose trends and reducing delays in therapeutic decisions. A systematic review and meta-analysis assessed CGM versus POC testing for glycemic control in hospitalized non-ICU adults with type 2 diabetes. Following PRISMA 2020 and Cochrane RoB2 risk-of-bias evaluation, seven RCTs with 1106 patients showed improved time in range (TIR) and lower time above range (TAR), with additional reductions in mean glucose and limited changes in low-glucose endpoints.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/continuous-glucose-monitoring-in-non-icu-hospitalized-adults-with-type-2-diabetes-a-systematic-review/461524/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/continuous-glucose-monitoring-in-non-icu-hospitalized-adults-with-type-2-diabetes-a-systematic-review/461524.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Mafia Boss","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-09","2026-09-30",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":29},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What is the main purpose of this systematic review?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"To evaluate the efficacy of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) compared with point-of-care (POC) capillary testing in improving glycemic control among hospitalized non-ICU adults with type 2 diabetes.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"How were eligible studies identified and assessed for bias?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"The review followed PRISMA 2020 guidelines, searched PubMed for randomized controlled trials in English or Spanish, and used the Cochrane RoB2 tool to assess risk of bias.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"Which outcomes improved with CGM versus POC testing?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"CGM improved time in range (TIR) and reduced time above range (TAR) at thresholds >180 mg/dL and >250 mg/dL. Mean glucose also decreased, with a modest reduction in low glucose time below range \u003C70 mg/dL, while no significant differences were found for TBR \u003C54 mg/dL or glycemic variability.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},461524,1791119812,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":29,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145},962090760730,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_9964176cb1d06d4a9deccf72a44ae3dc","Systematic Review  \nContinuous Glucose Monitoring in Non-ICU Hospitalized Adults with Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review  \nDarío Lara-Gálvez 1,2, *, Matilde Rubio-Almanza 1,2, Yolanda Aparicio-Ródenas 3, David Sanchis-Pascual 1,2, Pilar Masdeu-López-Cerón 1,2, Victor Pérez-Cervantes 1,2 and Juan Francisco Merino-Torres 1,2,4  \nAcademic Editors: Alejandro Gugliucci, Katarzyna A. Majewska and Agnieszka Zawada  \nReceived: 16 November 2025  \nRevised: 16 December 2025  \nAccepted: 18 December 2025  \nPublished: 20 December 2025  \nCopyright: © 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license.  \n1 Endocrinology and Nutrition Department, La Fe University and Polytechnic Hospital in Valencia,  \n46026 Valencia, Spain; [rubio_matalm@gva.es](rubio_matalm@gva.es) (M.R.-A.); [sanchis_davpas@gva.es](sanchis_davpas@gva.es) (D.S.-P.); [masdeu_pil@gva.es](masdeu_pil@gva.es) (P.M.-L.-C.); [perez_viccer@gva.es](perez_viccer@gva.es) (V.P.-C.); [merino_jfr@gva.es](merino_jfr@gva.es) (J.F.M.-T.)  \n2 Joint Research Unit on Endocrinology, Nutrition and Clinical Dietetics, Health Research Institute La Fe, 46026 Valencia, Spain  \n3 Department of Pediatrics, Hospital Clínico Universitario de Valencia, 46010 Valencia, Spain; [aparicio_yolrod@gva.es](aparicio_yolrod@gva.es)  \n4 Department of Medicine, University of Valencia, 46010 Valencia, Spain  \n* Correspondence: author: lara_[dar@gva.es](dar@gva.es)  \nAbstract  \nBackground: 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) . Methods: 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) . Results: 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; p \u003C 0.001) and reduced TAR > 180 mg/dL (MD −7.11%; 95% CI: −9.43, −4.78; p \u003C 0.001) and TAR > 250 mg/dL (MD −3.96%; 95% CI: −5.29, −2.62; p \u003C 0.001) compared with POC testing. MG also decreased with CGM (MD −11.27 mg/dL; 95% CI: −14.74, −7.81; p \u003C 0.001) . A modest reduction in TBR \u003C70 mg/dL was observed (MD −0.29%; p \u003C 0.001), whereas no significant differences were found for TBR \u003C 54 mg/dL or GV. Conclusions: 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.  \nKeywords: continuous glucose monitoring; diabetes mellitus; type 2; hospitalization; inpatients; glycemic control; meta-analysis  \n1. Introduction  \nPatients with diabetes mellitus (DM) constitute a substantial proportion of individuals admitted to general hospital wards, accounting for more than one-third of non-ICU admissions [1,2]. Hyperglycemia is also frequently detected in patients without previously known  \ndiabetes, with reports indicating that roughly 12–25% develop elevated glucose levels during hospitalization [1,3,4]. Disturbances in glycemic control during an inpatient stay have been repeatedly associated with unfavorable ","cbCaidMWx60DlDsy","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaidMWx60DlDsy","pdf",1772082,18,"English","# Abstract\n## Background\n## Methods\n## Results\n## Conclusions\n# Introduction","[{\"question\":\"What is the main purpose of this systematic review?\",\"answer\":\"To evaluate the efficacy of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) compared with point-of-care (POC) capillary testing in improving glycemic control among hospitalized non-ICU adults with type 2 diabetes.\"},{\"question\":\"How were eligible studies identified and assessed for bias?\",\"answer\":\"The review followed PRISMA 2020 guidelines, searched PubMed for randomized controlled trials in English or Spanish, and used the Cochrane RoB2 tool to assess risk of bias.\"},{\"question\":\"Which outcomes improved with CGM versus POC testing?\",\"answer\":\"CGM improved time in range (TIR) and reduced time above range (TAR) at thresholds \\u003e180 mg/dL and \\u003e250 mg/dL. Mean glucose also decreased, with a modest reduction in low glucose time below range \\u003c70 mg/dL, while no significant differences were found for TBR \\u003c54 mg/dL or glycemic variability.\"}]","Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Non-ICU Hospitalized Adults with Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review | PDF",1790761791,45]