Skip to main content
Download PDF
Download ePub

The efficacy of using continuous glucose monitoring as a behaviour change tool in populations with and without diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity volume 21, Article number: 145 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) holds potential as a precision public health intervention, offering personalised insights into how diet and physical activity affect glucose levels. Nevertheless, the efficacy of using CGM in populations with and without diabetes to support behaviour change and behaviour-driven outcomes remains unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis examines whether using CGM-based feedback to support behaviour change affects glycaemic, anthropometric, and behavioural outcomes in adults with and without diabetes.

Methods

Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Elsevier Embase, EBSCOhost PsycINFO, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global were searched through January 2024. Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials in adults that implemented CGM-based feedback in at least one study arm compared to a control without CGM feedback. Dual screening, data extraction, and bias assessment were conducted independently. Mean differences in outcomes between intervention and comparison groups were analysed using generic inverse variance models and random effects. Robustness of pooled estimates from random-effects models was considered with sensitivity and subgroup analyses.

Results

Twenty-five clinical trials with 2996 participants were included. Most studies were conducted in adults with type 2 diabetes (n = 17/25; 68%), followed by type 1 diabetes (n = 3/25, 12%), gestational diabetes (n = 3/25, 12%), and obesity (n = 3/25, 12%). Eleven (44%) studies reported CGM-affiliated conflicts of interest. Interventions incorporating CGM-based feedback reduced HbA1c by 0.28% (95% CI 0.15, 0.42, p < 0.001; I2 = 88%), and increased time in range by 7.4% (95% CI 2.0, 12.8, p < 0.008; I2 = 80.5%) compared to arms without CGM, with non-significant effects on time above range, BMI, and weight. Sensitivity analyses showed consistent mean differences in HbA1c across different conditions, and differences between subgroups were non-significant. Only 4/25 studies evaluated the effect of CGM on dietary changes; 5/25 evaluated physical activity.

Conclusions

This evidence synthesis found favourable, though modest, effects of CGM-based feedback on glycaemic control in adults with and without diabetes. Further research is needed to establish the behaviours and behavioural mechanisms driving the observed effects across diverse populations.

Trial registration

CRD42024514135.

Introduction

Strategies for disease management and prevention are continuously evolving, with recent efforts shifting from the conventional “one-size-fits-all” model of healthcare towards a more personalised approach. This paradigm shift gained momentum with the launch of the 2015 Precision Medicine Initiative, which focused on tailoring treatment decisions based on an individual’s unique biological, environmental, and lifestyle factors [1]. Since then, the focus has expanded from precision medicine to precision public health, which encompasses personalised approaches to disease prevention and health promotion [2]. One notable application of the precision public health approach is through biological feedback [3]. Biological feedback is a behaviour change technique wherein individuals are provided with their unique biological data to support changes in health behaviours and subsequent health-related outcomes [3, 4]. Its use in disease management and prevention has been rising in popularity since the early 2000s [3], mirroring advancements in wearable biosensing technology [5]. Wearable biosensors offer a promising avenue for delivering personalised biological feedback in real-time, which can empower users to make informed decisions that have a positive impact on their health, particularly when combined with monitoring of related health behaviours. However, little is known about the efficacy of biological feedback as a health intervention tool [3].

A prominent example of the implementation of biological feedback as a behaviour change technique is the continuous glucose monitor (CGM) – a small device worn on the abdomen or back of the arm that continuously measures glucose levels. Data from the device is transferred to the user’s mobile device for real-time viewing of current (and retrospective) glucose levels and trends. CGM first became available by prescription in 1999 and was originally intended for people with insulin-dependent diabetes [6]. Over the past two decades, CGM technology and accessibility has improved substantially [6], and there is a growing body of evidence demonstrating the efficacy of CGM for the management of both type 1 (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes (T2DM) [7,8,9,10]. In addition to its established use in diabetes management, CGM is increasingly being adopted by individuals without diabetes who are interested in optimising their metabolic health, preventing disease, and improving athletic performance [11, 12]. This growing interest is driven by the availability of consumer-friendly CGM devices and apps that provide real-time glucose monitoring, enabling users to make immediate adjustments to the behaviours associated with their glucose levels, such as their diet and physical activity. The value of the global CGM market is rapidly increasing from approximately USD $5.2 billion in 2021 and is projected to reach USD $16.1 billion by 2030 [13]. This expansion includes increasing interest from health-conscious individuals without diabetes, who can now purchase CGM devices over-the-counter in several countries, including the U.S [14].

Despite the growing interest in CGM as a tool to improve or optimise health, little is known about the efficacy of using CGM-based biological feedback to promote health behaviour change. As a first step, we conducted a scoping review of 31 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to explore the _targeted populations, behaviours, outcomes, and protocols of CGM-based biological feedback interventions [15]. Findings from the review revealed that the number of clinical trials implementing CGM-based biological feedback as a means to support behaviour change is rapidly increasing, with the studies being conducted in diverse populations with and without diabetes [15]. Changes in diet and physical activity were commonly _targeted behaviours by CGM-based interventions identified in the scoping review, and nearly all studies measured glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) as an outcome [15]. However, no reviews to date have pooled the effects of these interventions in a meta-analysis. Engler et al. reviewed 13 studies examining CGM as a behaviour change tool, but their search ended in 2019, was limited to T2DM, and they did not pool the results [16].

Given that CGMs are now used by individuals with and without diabetes, it is crucial to understand their wide-ranging effects to optimise their use for behaviour change in clinical and public health settings. Therefore, the objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to determine whether using CGM-based biological feedback to support health behaviour change, versus comparison groups not using CGM, affects glycaemic, anthropometric, and behavioural outcomes in adults with and without diabetes.

Methods

This systematic review and meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist [17], and was pre-registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO); CRD42024514135 [18]. The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (version 6.4, 2023) was used to guide this review [19].

Search strategy

In collaboration with a research librarian, a search strategy was devised to capture RCTs that incorporated CGM-based biological feedback to support health behaviour change. In January 2024, the search was conducted within the following electronic databases with no limitation on publication year or language: Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Elsevier Embase, EBSCOhost PsycINFO, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. The complete search strategy has been published elsewhere [15]. A review of 17 relevant bibliographies was also performed to identify potentially eligible RCTs. EndNote 20 (Clarivate Analytics, Boston, MA) was used to identify and remove duplicate references and retracted articles. The remaining references were imported into DistillerSR® (Evidence Partners; Ottawa, Canada), where they underwent a second round of deduplication to confirm all articles to be screened were unique.

Study selection

A three-phase screening process was used within DistillerSR® to identify eligible studies. During the first phase of screening, two trained reviewers independently examined the title and abstracts of all studies returned by the search to identify those that were (1) primary analyses of randomised controlled trials, (2) conducted in adults ≥ 18 years, and (3) implemented CGM-based biological feedback in at least one study arm. Those that met these eligibility criteria underwent a second phase of screening, where two trained reviewers retrieved the full-texts of articles and performed double-data extraction to identify studies that implemented CGM-based biological feedback to support health behaviour change. A third phase of screening was employed wherein studies that incorporated CGM-based biological feedback in the comparison arm were additionally excluded.

Data extraction

A data extraction form was developed within DistillerSR® (Evidence Partners; Ottawa, Canada) and piloted by two trained reviewers prior to use. Extraction items included bibliographic information, participant and intervention characteristics, descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation) of primary and secondary outcomes for intervention and control groups, and reported conflicts of interest. A complete list of extracted data is presented in Additional file 1. Two independent reviewers performed double-data extraction. Disagreements were discussed between the two reviewers and resolved. If consensus could not be reached, a third trained reviewer made the final determination. If available, previously published study protocols or protocol details from clinical trial registries were reviewed. When necessary, corresponding authors of included studies were contacted to retrieve unreported data.

Risk of bias assessment

Risk of bias was assessed by two independent reviewers using the Revised Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Controlled Trials (RoB 2) [20]. Each study was judged based on five domains, which were designed to assess risk of bias arising from: (1) the randomisation process, (2) deviations from the intended intervention, (3) missing outcome data, (4) the measurement of the outcome, and (5) the selection of the reported results. Based on the combination of answers from the signalling questions associated with each domain, each study was classified as having a “Low” or “High” risk of bias, or having “Some concerns” for each domain, and overall. Disagreements in classification between the two independent reviewers were discussed and resolved. If the two reviewers could not come to consensus, a third trained reviewer made the final decision.

Statistical analysis

A meta-analysis was conducted to compare pooled effect sizes between treatment and control subjects for primary and secondary outcomes with suitably comparable intervention and comparison arms. The primary outcome was change in HbA1c. Secondary outcomes included changes in glycaemic variability (time in range (TIR), time above range (TAR)), anthropometry (body weight, body mass index (BMI)), and behavioural outcomes (diet, physical activity). The mean difference between intervention and comparison groups was analysed using generic inverse variance models and random effects. Outcomes reported in different units, such as HbA1c, were converted to the necessary units of analysis using standard formulas to ensure consistency across studies. When extracting data based on between-group differences, correlation coefficients, obtained from publications when reported or taken from previous reviews with a larger pool of trials [21], were used to estimate within-group variability. Additionally, for studies with multiple comparison groups, we combined the results within each study to prevent overrepresentation. HbA1c levels, TIR, and TAR are reported as percentages. The observed reductions represent absolute changes, indicating direct decreases in percentage points, rather than relative changes of the original percentages. For studies with multiple follow-up assessments, the data from the latest available follow-up were included in the meta-analysis. For studies with multiple outcomes (e.g., HbA1c, TIR, TAR, weight, BMI, diet, physical activity), each outcome was analysed in a distinct meta-analysis. This approach minimised the potential of inflation of study weight from multiple outcomes, as each study contributed independently within its respective analysis.

Publication bias was assessed with a funnel plot and Egger’s test [22]. For all analyses, heterogeneity was assessed with the I2 statistic [23]. For the main outcome of HbA1c, sensitivity analyses were done when an I2 statistic was more than 50%, which included removing studies with a high risk of bias, influential cases (determined by Baujat plots) [24], and study duration less than 12 weeks. A duration of less than 12 weeks was selected as a threshold since HbA1c reflects average glucose levels over 3 months. The only deviation from the pre-registered protocol was the addition of a sensitivity analysis based on conflict of interest, due to the higher-than-anticipated number of studies with reported conflicts of interest. Subgroup analyses were conducted using pre-specified subgroups, including type of diabetes, severity of diabetes at baseline (HbA1c ≥ 8%, insulin use), duration of the CGM sensor wear, method of CGM feedback, behaviour tracking in the intervention group, whether participants received CGM-based guidance for behaviour change, the timing of CGM-based guidance (i.e., pre- or post-CGM wear), and use of a glucometer in the control group. Glucometer use in the control group was selected as a subgroup because control participants were receiving glucose feedback; however, it was in the form of intermittent finger-pricks, as compared to the intervention group’s CGM which offered continuous glucose feedback. Only those with a sufficient number of studies per subgroup are presented. Analyses were done with R (v4.2.2) using the Meta R package (v7.0.0) [25], Metafor R package (v4.6.0) [26], and Risk-of-Bias VISualization (Robvis) web app [27].

Results

Search results

5389 records were assessed for eligibility and 5364 were ineligible. Data from 25 RCTs involving a total of 2996 participants were included in the systematic review [28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52]. The PRISMA flow-diagram is presented in Additional file 2.

Study characteristics

The characteristics of the 25 RCTs included within this review are summarized in Table 1. Studies were conducted across 15 different countries, most commonly the U.S. (n = 5/25, 20%), Korea (n = 3/25, 12%), and China (n = 3/25, 12%). A majority of studies were conducted in individuals with T2DM (n = 17/25; 68%) [29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45], followed by T1DM (n = 3/25, 12%) [44,45,46], gestational diabetes (GDM; n = 3/25, 12%) [28, 47, 49], and overweight and obesity (n = 3/25, 12%) [50,51,52]. Five (20%) RCTs focused solely on females (4 of which were in pregestational and GDM populations), while the remainder were balanced among male and female participants. Most studies (n = 16/25; 64%) had a mean participant age in the mid-to-late 50’s to early 60’s. Studies ranged from 20 to 300 participants (median = 100), with interventions spanning 2–52 weeks (median = 15). All interventions were multi-component, consisting of CGM-based biological feedback in addition to other features such as prospective (n = 12/25, 48%) [32,33,34, 39, 41,42,43, 47, 49,50,51,52] or retrospective (n = 15/25, 60%) [28,29,30,31,32, 35, 38,39,40, 43, 44, 46,47,48,49] CGM-based guidance, or tracking of behavioural and/or biological data (n = 13/25, 52%) [29, 34, 36,37,38,39,40,41, 45, 47, 49, 51, 52]. Eleven of the 25 (44%) [28, 30,31,32,33,34,35, 39, 42, 44, 48] studies reported CGM-affiliated conflicts of interest, primarily with Abbott (n = 5/25, 20%) [28, 30, 32, 35, 42], Dexcom (n = 5/25, 20%) [28, 30, 32, 34, 39], and Medtronic (n = 5/25, 20%) [28, 30, 31, 35, 48].

Table 1 Characteristics of included randomised controlled trials (N = 25)
Full size table

Several studies assessed outcomes that could not be included in the analysis because they were not in a usable form (e.g., presented graphically or missing timepoints). Voormolen et al. assessed HbA1c but only reported results graphically [28], Yeoh et al. measured TIR and TAR only in the intervention group [29], and Haak et al. were missing key measures for weight and BMI [30].

Quality of included studies

Figure 1 represents the quality of RCTs included for our primary outcome, HbA1c. Of the studies with available HbA1c data, 47.8% (n = 11/23) were rated as low risk [30, 33,34,35, 40,41,42, 45, 50,51,52]. Most often, studies were rated as having “some concerns” when bias was present in the selection of the reported result (e.g., no pre-specified plan for analysis). A “high risk” rating was most commonly attributed to studies presenting risk in the measurement of the outcome (e.g., using more than one measurement tool to assess HbA1c among participants).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Risk of bias assessment. (A) review authors’ judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies. (B) review authors’ judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study

Full size image

The funnel plot (Additional file 3) for HbA1c was asymmetrical, indicating possible publication bias or selective reporting within the studies included in this meta-analysis; however, Egger’s test results indicated no significant evidence of small study effects or publication bias (t = -1.284, df = 21, p = 0.213). Additionally, the intercept estimate as the standard error approaches zero was -0.075 (95% CI: -0.332 to 0.182), suggesting that any bias due to small study effects is minimal.

Effectiveness of CGM as a behaviour change tool

HbA1c

A summary of key outcome differences between intervention and comparison groups is presented in Table 2. Twenty-three RCTs, including 2355 participants, had available data on the effects of using CGM-based biological feedback on HbA1c (Fig. 3) [29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48, 50,51,52]. HbA1c reduced by 0.28% (95% CI 0.15, 0.42, p < 0.001) across intervention arms compared with the comparison arms (Fig. 2). Heterogeneity was high (I2 = 88%), but sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the main analysis findings, showing consistent mean differences in HbA1c regression across different conditions, though the level of heterogeneity varied (Table 3).

Table 2 Summary of key outcome differences between intervention and comparison groups using CGM for behaviour change
Full size table
Fig. 2
figure 2

Mean difference in HbA1c (%) between intervention and comparison groups using CGM for behaviour change

Full size image

We examined the effect of pre-specified subgroup analyses on HbA1c (Table 4). While there were variations in the mean differences in HbA1c regression across different baseline characteristics and intervention characteristics, none of the differences between subgroups reached statistical significance (ps ≥ 0.392). While we had pre-specified that we would perform subgroup analyses for diabetes status and timing of CGM-based guidance, these results were not reported as there was an insufficient number of studies per subgroup to draw conclusions.

Table 3 Sensitivity analysis of HbA1c regression
Full size table
Table 4 Subgroup analysis of HbA1c regression
Full size table
Fig. 3
figure 3

Mean differences between intervention and comparison groups in (A) time in range (%), (B) time above range (%), (C) BMI (kg/m2), and (D) weight (kg). BMI: body mass index, MD: mean difference

Full size image

Glycaemic variability

TIR was analysed in 10 studies with 1128 participants [30, 32, 35, 39,40,41,42, 44,45,46]. A majority (n = 7/10, 70%) reported TIR as 70–180 mg/dL [30, 32, 35, 39, 41, 42, 45]; those that did not reported TIR as 70–150 mg/dL (n = 1/10, 10%) [44], 70–140 mg/dL (n = 1/10, 10%) [40] or did not specify the lower and upper limits used (n = 1/10, 10%) [46]. TIR was increased by 7.4% (95% CI 2.0, 12.8, p < 0.008; I2 = 80.5%) in the intervention group compared to the comparison (Fig. 3A).

TAR was analysed in 8 studies with 752 participants [30, 32, 39,40,41,42, 44, 45]. Most (n = 5/8, 63%) used 180 mg/dL as the upper limit [30, 32, 39, 41, 42], while one (13%) used 250 mg/dL [45], one (13%) used 150 mg/dL [44], and one (13%) used 140 mg/dL [40]. There was no significant change in TAR between intervention and comparison groups (-3.8% (95% CI -11.8, 4.2, p = 0.352); I2 = 84.0%) (Fig. 3B).

Anthropometry

Nine studies with 761 participants assessed the effects of CGM-based biological feedback on BMI [31, 34, 42, 43, 45, 50,51,52], and 8 studies with 691 participants examined the effects on body weight [32, 33, 37, 41, 43, 50,51,52]. The changes in BMI and weight were not statistically significant (BMI: -0.4 kg/m2 (95% CI -0.9, 0.0, p = 0.080); weight:  -0.7 kg (95% CI -1.4, 0.0), p = 0.066) (Fig. 3C and D).

Behavioural outcomes

Four of the 25 (16%) RCTs assessed diet as an outcome [34, 43, 49, 50], which was measured via food records (n = 3/4, 75%) [43, 49, 50] or web-assisted 24-hour dietary recalls (n = 1/4, 25%) [34]. Twelve dietary variables were evaluated across the four studies: energy intake (kcals/day), carbohydrate intake (% of total kcals, grams/day, servings/day), fat intake (% of total kcals, grams/day), protein intake (% of total kcals, g/day), cholesterol intake (grams/day), glycaemic index, glycaemic load, and diet control. The most commonly measured aspects of diet were energy intake (kcals/day; n = 3/4, 75%) [34, 43, 50], carbohydrate intake (grams/day; n = 2/4, 50%) [34, 50], and fat intake (% total kcals; n = 2/4, 50%) [43, 50]. Compared to the comparison arms, the intervention arms did not significantly differ in energy intake [43, 50] (n = 2; data unavailable for 1 study [34]). However, one study found an increase in fat intake (g/day) and a decrease in carbohydrate intake (g/day) in the intervention arm compared to the control [50]. Given the minimal number of studies that captured each dietary variable, and the variety of measurement tools used, dietary outcomes were not meta-analysed.

Five studies assessed physical activity as an outcome [31, 34, 41, 43, 49], which was measured via self-report (n = 2/5, 40%) [43, 49], actigraph (n = 2/5, 40%) [31, 41], or Fitbit (n = 1/5, 20%) [34]. Nine physical activity variables were measured across the five studies: physical activity time (hours active; minutes active/week), daily step count, sedentary time (% time/day), combined sedentary and light activity (minutes/day), moderate intensity activity (minutes/day), moderate-to-vigorous intensity activity (% time/day), counts/day (defined as the frequency and intensity of movement over a 1-minute interval) and appropriate exercise (undefined). No activity variable was assessed in more than one study; thus, physical activity data could not be pooled. Descriptively, one study assessing minutes of moderate physical activity per day [31], another study assessing minutes of general physical activity per week [43], and a third study assessing appropriate exercise [49], all showed significant increases in the CGM group compared to the control, while one study evaluating combined sedentary and light activity time showed significant decreases [31]. Compared to the control group, one study assessing activity level (counts/day) [31], another study assessing hours active and steps per day [34], and a third study assessing daily percent of time spent sedentary and in moderate-to-vigorous activity [41], did not show significant differences.

Discussion

Precision public health interventions incorporating CGM-based biological feedback show promise for enhancing health outcomes. While previous research has demonstrated the efficacy of CGM in improving HbA1c levels among adults with T1DM and T2DM [7,8,9,10], to our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis to specifically assess the impact of CGM when used to support behaviour change among adults with and without diabetes. The meta-analysis findings revealed a significant reduction in HbA1c levels by 0.28% and an increase in TIR by 7.4% when using CGM as a behaviour change tool, compared to control conditions without CGM. Although not statistically significant, trends were observed for reductions in weight and BMI with CGM use. There was no significant change in TAR between intervention and comparison groups. Inconsistencies in how dietary and physical activity measures were reported across studies prevented a meta-analysis of these behaviours.

The modest reduction in HbA1c observed in this review is consistent with findings from other meta-analyses [7, 8, 53,54,55,56,57], demonstrating that CGM use, whether implemented to support behaviour change or not (i.e., medication adjustment), effectively lowers HbA1c levels. Reductions of more than 0.3% are considered clinically meaningful by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) [58] and have been shown to reduce diabetes-related complications [10]. However, clinical impact may vary based on population characteristics and baseline glycaemic control. Our findings were not significantly impacted by participant- nor intervention characteristics, albeit more studies are needed to confirm these findings, particularly in subgroups that have been minimally investigated (e.g., participants without diabetes, inclusion of real-time CGM-based guidance). However, it may be more appropriate to look at other outcome measures in those without diabetes, including glycaemic variability [59, 60] and behaviour changes in response to CGM-based feedback. Notably, 44% of the included studies reported conflicts of interest related to CGM-affiliated companies, which should be considered when interpreting results.

In addition to HbA1c, TIR and TAR outcomes were analysed to assess glycaemic variability. Despite CGM’s ability to measure and quantify these variables, less than half of the included studies reported TIR or TAR. Given that all studies incorporated CGM in the intervention, the exclusion of these data from results represents a missed opportunity to compare changes in glycaemic variability pre- and post-intervention. Based on the available data, this meta-analysis showed that CGM increased TIR by 7.4% compared to the control, which surpasses the threshold of 5% for clinical significance [61] and is consistent with other meta-analyses, which have shown an increase in TIR by 5.6% from baseline following CGM in individuals with T1DM or T2DM [10], and an increase in TIR by 8.6% compared to SMBG in those with T2DM not using insulin [9]. Conversely, no significant change in TAR was observed, which may be due to inconsistent thresholds used to define time above range and the smaller number of studies reporting this outcome. Furthermore, while reductions in BMI and weight were observed, our review showed that changes in these anthropometric variables were not statistically significant following CGM-based biological feedback. This suggests that feedback from CGM may support glycaemic improvements independent of weight change, including among those at lower baseline HbA1c levels and without insulin dependence. These glycaemic benefits may be due to improved dietary intake and increased physical activity. Unfortunately, due to heterogeneity in the reporting of dietary intake and physical activity, we were unable to pool these outcomes, limiting confirmation of specific behavioural mechanisms.

The present review had several strengths. It was the first meta-analysis to include studies focused solely on the use of CGM as a behaviour change tool and was inclusive of adults with and without diabetes. Our results are broadly generalisable given the distribution of men and women, age range (mean age: 26–63 years), and locations (15 countries) observed across the 25 RCTs. Nevertheless, a majority of RCTs (n = 15/25; 60%) were conducted in individuals with T2DM, which may limit the generalisability of these results to populations less studied. A serial survey conducted in the US from 2014 to 2020 found that CGM users were more likely to be younger, employed, earning at least $75,000 per year, covered by insurance, and with fewer comorbidities. During the survey period, CGM use increased from 0.4 to 4.1% [62]. More studies are to be expected among populations without diabetes given the increased accessibility and commercialisation of CGM. Additionally, pre-specified sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed to explore heterogeneity, considering factors such as study duration and risk of bias. However, there were several limitations. High heterogeneity amongst the included studies was a significant concern, potentially affecting the reliability of the findings. Sensitivity analyses were conducted, revealing that changes in HbA1c did not differ significantly across several participant and intervention characteristics, which supports the effects of CGM-based biological feedback on HbA1c. Nonetheless, this approach does not entirely address the issue of heterogeneity, and it remains a limitation that warrants further investigation. Another limitation is that while HbA1c was reported in the majority of studies, other variables were reported in 10 or fewer studies. This indicates a substantial gap in knowledge, suggesting that further research is needed, particularly on behavioural outcomes, to confirm the effect of CGM-based biological feedback on TIR, TAR, weight, BMI, diet, and activity. It also suggests the development of a core outcome set, which would be a minimum set of outcomes to be reported across all CGM-based behavioural intervention studies [63]. Additionally, all interventions were multi-component, differing in the intervention components delivered alongside CGM, which complicates isolating the specific impact of CGM-based feedback. Although subgroup analyses were performed to address the variability in intervention characteristics, such as diet and activity tracking, no significant difference in HbA1c reduction was observed. Variability in comparison groups, which ranged from simple usual care to complex multi-component conditions (e.g., SMBG, education, behavioural tracking), is a recognized challenge in behavioural intervention research and may attenuate CGM effects [64]. Our team is further investigating the impact of these diverse components within intervention and control arms. Understanding comparator group dynamics is essential for accurately assessing CGM-based feedback’s specific effects on behaviour change and health outcomes [65].

Conclusion

In conclusion, this systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that CGM-based biological feedback may support modest improvements in health behaviours that impact glycaemic control in adults with and without diabetes, specifically by reducing HbA1c and increasing TIR. This review highlights several future directions. First, further research on the use of CGM-based biological feedback in populations without diabetes is needed to support the efficacy of this intervention in a variety of populations. Second, the mechanisms by which CGM improves glycaemic measures, such as behaviour change, are poorly understood. Consistency in reporting behavioural measures and the use of high-quality, standardised measurement tools are necessary to compare behavioural outcomes effectively. Lastly, given the multi-component nature of CGM-based biological feedback interventions, research is needed to identify the optimal and most cost-effective combination of intervention components to be delivered alongside CGM. While this review represents a significant step towards understanding the benefits of CGM-based biological feedback on glycaemic, anthropometric, and behavioural outcomes, it also underscores the need for continued investigation to refine and optimise its application across diverse populations.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

BCT:

Behaviour change technique

BMI:

Body mass index

CGM:

Continuous glucose monitor

FDA:

U.S. Food and Drug Administration

GDM:

Gestational diabetes

HbA1c:

Glycated haemoglobin

I/C:

Intervention/comparison

MD:

Mean difference

N/A:

Not applicable

N/R:

Not reported

PA:

Physical activity

PRISMA:

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

PROSPERO:

International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews

RCT:

Randomised controlled trial

RoB 2:

Revised Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomised Controlled Trials

SMBG:

Self-monitoring of blood glucose

T1DM:

Type 1 diabetes mellitus

T2DM:

Type 2 diabetes mellitus

TAR:

Time above range

TBR:

Time below range

TIR:

Time in range

References

  1. Collins FS, Varmus H. A new initiative on precision medicine. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(9):793–5. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1500523.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Precision health: Improving health for each of us and all of us | CDC. Published September 7, 2023. Accessed April 19. 2024. https://www.cdc.gov/genomics/about/precision_med.htm

  3. Richardson KM, Jospe MR, Saleh AA, et al. Use of Biological Feedback as a Health Behavior Change Technique in Adults: Scoping Review. J Med Internet Res. 2023;25:e44359. https://doi.org/10.2196/44359.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Richardson KM, Saleh AA, Jospe MR, Liao Y, Schembre SM. Using Biological Feedback to Promote Health Behavior Change in Adults: Protocol for a Scoping Review. JMIR Res Protoc. 2022;11(1):e32579. https://doi.org/10.2196/32579.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Erdem A, Eksin E, Senturk H, Yildiz E, Maral M. Recent developments in wearable biosensors for healthcare and biomedical applications. TRAC Trends Anal Chem. 2024;171:117510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trac.2023.117510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Didyuk O, Econom N, Guardia A, Livingston K, Klueh U. Continuous Glucose Monitoring Devices: Past, Present, and Future Focus on the History and Evolution of Technological Innovation. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2021;15(3):676–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932296819899394.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lu J, Ying Z, Wang P, Fu M, Han C, Zhang M. Effects of continuous glucose monitoring on glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Diabetes Obes Metabolism. 2024;26(1):362–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/dom.15328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Jancev M, Vissers TACM, Visseren FLJ, et al. Continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetologia. 2024;67(5):798–810. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-024-06107-6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Uhl S, Choure A, Rouse B, Loblack A, Reaven P. Effectiveness of Continuous Glucose Monitoring on Metrics of Glycemic Control in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. J Clin Endocrinol Metabolism. 2024;109(4):1119–31. https://doi.org/10.1210/clinem/dgad652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Di Molfetta S, Caruso I, Cignarelli A, et al. Professional continuous glucose monitoring in patients with diabetes mellitus: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2023;25(5):1301–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/dom.14981.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Flockhart M, Larsen FJ. Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Endurance Athletes: Interpretation and Relevance of Measurements for Improving Performance and Health. Sports Med. 2024;54(2):247–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-023-01910-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bowler ALM, Whitfield J, Marshall L, Coffey VG, Burke LM, Cox GR. The Use of Continuous Glucose Monitors in Sport: Possible Applications and Considerations. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2023;33(2):121–32. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijsnem.2022-0139.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Polaris Market Research. Continuous Glucose Monitoring Device Market Share, Size, Trends, Industry Analysis Report, By Component Type (Transmitters & Receivers, Sensors, and Insulin Pumps); By End-Use; By Region; Segment Forecast, 2024–2032. 2024:119. https://www.polarismarketresearch.com/industry-analysis/continuous-glucose-monitoring-market

  14. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA Clears First Over-the-Counter Continuous Glucose Monitor. FDA. Published March 6, 2024. Accessed April 26, 2024. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-clears-first-over-counter-continuous-glucose-monitor

  15. Jospe MR, Richardson KM, Saleh AA, et al. Leveraging continuous glucose monitoring as a catalyst for behaviour change: a scoping review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2024;21(1):74. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-024-01622-6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Engler S, Fields S, Leach W, Van Loon M. Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring as a Behavioral Intervention Tool for T2D: A Systematic Review. J technol behav sci. 2022;7(2):252–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41347-022-00247-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Jospe MR, Schembre SM, Richardson KM, Bohlen L, Crawshaw J, Saleh A. Use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) to promote health behaviour change: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. National Institute for Health and Care Researc: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. Accessed April 18, 2024. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=514135

  19. Higgins J, Thomas J, Chandler J et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2nd Edition. John Wiley & Sons; 2019.

  20. Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366:l4898. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l4898.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Reynolds AN, Akerman AP, Mann J. Dietary fibre and whole grains in diabetes management: Systematic review and meta-analyses. PLoS Med. 2020;17(3):e1003053. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003053.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315(7109):629–34. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557–60. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Baujat B, Mahé C, Pignon JP, Hill C. A graphical method for exploring heterogeneity in meta-analyses: application to a meta-analysis of 65 trials. Stat Med. 2002;21(18):2641–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1221.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Balduzzi S, Rücker G, Schwarzer G. How to perform a meta-analysis with R: a practical tutorial. Evid Based Ment Health. 2019;22(4):153–60. https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmental-2019-300117.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Viechtbauer W. Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package. J Stat Softw. 2010;36:1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. McGuinness LA, Higgins JPT. Risk-of-bias VISualization (robvis): An R package and Shiny web app for visualizing risk-of-bias assessments. Res Synth Methods. 2021;12(1):55–61. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1411.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Voormolen DN, DeVries JH, Sanson RME, et al. Continuous glucose monitoring during diabetic pregnancy (GlucoMOMS): A multicentre randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2018;20(8):1894–902. https://doi.org/10.1111/dom.13310.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Yeoh E, Lim BK, Fun S, et al. Efficacy of self-monitoring of blood glucose versus retrospective continuous glucose monitoring in improving glycaemic control in diabetic kidney disease patients. Nephrol (Carlton). 2018;23(3):264–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/nep.12978.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Haak T, Hanaire H, Ajjan R, Hermanns N, Riveline JP, Rayman G. Flash Glucose-Sensing Technology as a Replacement for Blood Glucose Monitoring for the Management of Insulin-Treated Type 2 Diabetes: a Multicenter, Open-Label Randomized Controlled Trial. Diabetes Ther. 2017;8(1):55–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13300-016-0223-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Allen NA, Fain JA, Braun B, Chipkin SR. Continuous glucose monitoring counseling improves physical activity behaviors of individuals with type 2 diabetes: A randomized clinical trial. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2008;80(3):371–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2008.01.006.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Aronson R, Brown RE, Chu L, et al. IMpact of flash glucose Monitoring in pEople with type 2 Diabetes Inadequately controlled with non-insulin Antihyperglycaemic ThErapy (IMMEDIATE): A randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2023;25(4):1024–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/dom.14949.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Choe, HJ, Rhee E, Won JC, Park KS, Lee W, Cho, YM. Effects of patient-driven lifestyle modification using intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring in patients with type 2 diabetes: results from the randomized open-label PDF study. Diabetes Care. 2022;45(10):2224–230. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc22-0764

  34. Cox DJ, Banton T, Moncrief M, et al. Glycemic excursion minimization in the management of type 2 diabetes: a novel intervention tested in a randomized clinical trial. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2020;8(2):e001795. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjdrc-2020-001795.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Furler J, O’Neal D, Speight J, et al. Use of professional-mode flash glucose monitoring, at 3-month intervals, in adults with type 2 diabetes in general practice (GP-OSMOTIC): a pragmatic, open-label, 12-month, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2020;8(1):17–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-8587(19)30385-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Guo M, Meng F, Guo Q, et al. Effectiveness of mHealth management with an implantable glucose sensor and a mobile application among Chinese adults with type 2 diabetes. J Telemed Telecare. 2023;29(8):632–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/1357633X211020261.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Lee YB, Kim G, Jun JE, et al. An Integrated Digital Health Care Platform for Diabetes Management With AI-Based Dietary Management: 48-Week Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial. Diabetes Care. 2023;46(5):959–66. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc22-1929.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Meisenhelder-Smith J. The effects of American Diabetes Association (ADA) diabetes self-management education and continuous glucose monitoring on diabetes health beliefs, behaviors and metabolic control.

  39. Price DA, Deng Q, Kipnes M, Beck SE. Episodic Real-Time CGM Use in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes: Results of a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial. Diabetes Ther. 2021;12(7):2089–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13300-021-01086-y.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Sato J, Kanazawa A, Ikeda F, et al. Effect of treatment guidance using a retrospective continuous glucose monitoring system on glycaemic control in outpatients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A randomized controlled trial. J Int Med Res. 2016;44(1):109–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0300060515600190.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Taylor PJ, Thompson CH, Luscombe-Marsh ND, Wycherley TP, Wittert G, Brinkworth GD. Efficacy of Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring to Improve Effects of a Prescriptive Lifestyle Intervention in Type 2 Diabetes: A Pilot Study. Diabetes Ther. 2019;10(2):509–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13300-019-0572-z.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Wada E, Onoue T, Kobayashi T, et al. Flash glucose monitoring helps achieve better glycemic control than conventional self-monitoring of blood glucose in non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2020;8(1):e001115. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjdrc-2019-001115.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Yoo HJ, An HG, Park SY, et al. Use of a real time continuous glucose monitoring system as a motivational device for poorly controlled type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2008;82(1):73–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2008.06.015.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Cosson E, Hamo-Tchatchouang E, Dufaitre-Patouraux L, Attali JR, Pariès J, Schaepelynck-Bélicar P. Multicentre, randomised, controlled study of the impact of continuous sub-cutaneous glucose monitoring (GlucoDay) on glycaemic control in type 1 and type 2 diabetes patients. Diabetes Metab. 2009;35(4):312–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabet.2009.02.006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Ruissen MM, Torres-Peña JD, Uitbeijerse BS, et al. Clinical impact of an integrated e-health system for diabetes self-management support and shared decision making (POWER2DM): a randomised controlled trial. Diabetologia. 2023;66(12):2213–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-023-06006-2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Zhang W, Liu Y, Sun B, et al. Improved HbA1c and reduced glycaemic variability after 1-year intermittent use of flash glucose monitoring. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):23950. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-03480-9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Alfadhli E, Osman E, Basri T. Use of a real time continuous glucose monitoring system as an educational tool for patients with gestational diabetes. Diabetol Metab Syndr. 2016;8:48. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13098-016-0161-5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Murphy HR, Rayman G, Lewis K, et al. Effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring in pregnant women with diabetes: randomised clinical trial. BMJ. 2008;337:a1680. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a1680.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Zhang X, Jiang D, Wang X. The effects of the instantaneous scanning glucose monitoring system on hypoglycemia, weight gain, and health behaviors in patients with gestational diabetes: a randomised trial. Ann Palliat Med. 2021;10(5):5714–20. https://doi.org/10.21037/apm-21-439.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Chekima K, Noor MI, Ooi YBH, Yan SW, Jaweed M, Chekima B. Utilising a Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitor as Part of a Low Glycaemic Index and Load Diet and Determining Its Effect on Improving Dietary Intake, Body Composition and Metabolic Parameters of Overweight and Obese Young Adults: A Randomised Controlled Trial. Foods. 2022;11(12):1754. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11121754.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Jospe MR, de Bruin WE, Haszard JJ, Mann JI, Brunton M, Taylor RW. Teaching people to eat according to appetite - Does the method of glucose measurement matter? Appetite. 2020;151:104691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2020.104691.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Schembre SM, Jospe MR, Bedrick EJ, et al. Hunger Training as a Self-regulation Strategy in a Comprehensive Weight Loss Program for Breast Cancer Prevention: A Randomized Feasibility Study. Cancer Prev Res. 2022;15(3):193–201. https://doi.org/10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-21-0298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Teo E, Hassan N, Tam W, Koh S. Effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring in maintaining glycaemic control among people with type 1 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials and meta-analysis. Diabetologia. 2022;65(4):604–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-021-05648-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Dicembrini I, Cosentino C, Monami M, Mannucci E, Pala L. Effects of real-time continuous glucose monitoring in type 1 diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Acta Diabetol. 2021;58(4):401–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00592-020-01589-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Elbalshy M, Haszard J, Smith H, et al. Effect of divergent continuous glucose monitoring technologies on glycaemic control in type 1 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Diabet Med. 2022;39(8):e14854. https://doi.org/10.1111/dme.14854.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Janapala RN, Jayaraj JS, Fathima N, et al. Continuous Glucose Monitoring Versus Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis. Cureus Published online September. 2019;12. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.5634.

  57. Dicembrini I, Mannucci E, Monami M, Pala L. Impact of technology on glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes: A meta-analysis of randomized trials on continuous glucose monitoring and continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. Diabetes Obes Metabolism. 2019;21(12):2619–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/dom.13845.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Garber AJ. Treat-to-_target trials: uses, interpretation and review of concepts. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2014;16(3):193–205. https://doi.org/10.1111/dom.12129.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Hill NR, Oliver NS, Choudhary P, Levy JC, Hindmarsh P, Matthews DR. Normal reference range for mean tissue glucose and glycemic variability derived from continuous glucose monitoring for subjects without diabetes in different ethnic groups. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2011;13(9):921–8. https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2010.0247.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Hall H, Perelman D, Breschi A, et al. Glucotypes reveal new patterns of glucose dysregulation. PLoS Biol. 2018;16(7):e2005143. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2005143.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Battelino T, Danne T, Bergenstal RM, et al. Clinical _targets for Continuous Glucose Monitoring Data Interpretation: Recommendations From the International Consensus on Time in Range. Diabetes Care. 2019;42(8):1593–603. https://doi.org/10.2337/dci19-0028.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Sherrill CH, Lee S. Prevalence, characteristics, and health-related quality of life of continuous glucose monitoring use according to the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System 2014–2020. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2023;29(5):541–9. https://doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2023.29.5.541.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Kirkham JJ, Williamson P. Core outcome sets in medical research. BMJ Med. 2022;1(1):e000284. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjmed-2022-000284.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Black N, Eisma MC, Viechtbauer W, et al. Variability and effectiveness of comparator group interventions in smoking cessation trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Addiction. 2020;115(9):1607–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.14969.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. de Bruin M, Viechtbauer W, Eisma MC, et al. Identifying effective behavioural components of Intervention and Comparison group support provided in SMOKing cEssation (IC-SMOKE) interventions: a systematic review protocol. Syst Rev. 2016;5:77. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0253-1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

Not applicable.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Kelli M. Richardson

    Present address: Department of Oncology, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, 2115 Wisconsin Avenue NW Suite 300, Washington, D.C, 20007, USA

  2. Kelli M. Richardson and Michelle R. Jospe contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Nutritional Sciences and Wellness, College of Agriculture, Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA

    Kelli M. Richardson

  2. Department of Oncology, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, 2115 Wisconsin Avenue NW Suite 300, Washington, D.C, 20007, USA

    Michelle R. Jospe & Susan M. Schembre

  3. Center for Health Promotion and Health Equity, Department of Behavioural and Social Sciences, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, RI, USA

    Lauren C. Bohlen

  4. Centre for Implementation Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada

    Jacob Crawshaw

  5. Arizona Health Sciences Library, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA

    Ahlam A. Saleh

Authors
  1. Kelli M. Richardson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michelle R. Jospe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lauren C. Bohlen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jacob Crawshaw
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ahlam A. Saleh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Susan M. Schembre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

KMR, MRJ, LCB, JC, AAS, and SMS conceptualised the review. KMR, MRJ, AAS, and SMS devised the search strategy. AAS implemented the search strategy into several databases and deduplicated the search results. KMR, MRJ, and SMS developed the screening and data extraction forms. KMR and MRJ independently performed screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. JC advised on bias assessment. KMR and MRJ cleaned the data. MRJ meta-analysed the data. KMR and MRJ led the writing of the initial manuscript draft. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Susan M. Schembre.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

KMR reports consultation to WeightWatchers International, Inc. MRJ reports former consultation to Zoe. SMS reports unpaid consultation for Viocare. All other authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Additional file 1

Additional file 2

Additional file 3

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Richardson, K.M., Jospe, M.R., Bohlen, L.C. et al. The efficacy of using continuous glucose monitoring as a behaviour change tool in populations with and without diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 21, 145 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-024-01692-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-024-01692-6

Keywords

International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity

ISSN: 1479-5868

Contact us

  NODES
admin 3
Association 1
chat 1
innovation 1
INTERN 11
Note 3
Project 1
twitter 1
USERS 3