DOI

10.21007/con.dnp.2026.0140

Faculty Advisor

Tracy McClinton, DNP, APRN, AGACNP-BC, HGET-C, EBP-C and Margaret Harvey, PhD, APRN, ACNP-BC, CHFN, FHRS

Document Type

Poster

Publication Date

Spring 4-29-2026

Disciplines

Health and Medical Administration | Investigative Techniques | Medicine and Health Sciences | Nursing | Nursing Administration | Quality Improvement

Abstract

Purpose/Background

Individuals with Type II diabetes mellitus (T2DM) experience increased risk of cardiovascular disease and higher mortality rates relative to non-diabetic populations. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) enables more precise analysis of glucose patterns and trends compared to conventional self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG). CGM provides frequent measurements and generate meaningful metrics, such as time in range (TIR), time above range (TAR), and time below range (TBR), allowing evaluation of glucose stability and variability. Despite these advantages, evidence comparing CGM and SMBG remains inconsistent. This scoping review aims to evaluate how CGM compares with SMBG across reported outcomes, including TIR, TAR, TBR, HbA1c, hypoglycemic patterns, and device- related effects.

Methods

We conducted a literature search from August 2023 through December 2024, using PubMed, CINAHL, and MEDLINE. The PRISMA guidelines guided the search strategy. Search terms included continuous glucose monitoring, self-monitoring of blood glucose, glycemic control, time above range, time below range, hypoglycemia, and type II diabetes. Fourteen relevant articles were identified, of which eleven met the criteria.

Results

Eleven articles were selected based on our inclusion criteria, including four systematic reviews, three RCTs, and four controlled trials without randomization. When considered collectively, the evidence indicates a consistent pattern favoring CGM over SMBG. Across all 11 studies, CGM showed lower HbA1c levels, with multiple studies demonstrating reduced glycemic variability, improvements in TIR, and fewer hypoglycemic events. While most studies evaluated outcomes over a 3–6-month period, two indicated improvements over a 12-month period, suggesting results may be maintained over a longer period.

Implications for Nursing Practice

The evidence overall suggests that CGM provides more effective glycemic control than SMBG in adults aged 30-65 years. Nurse practitioners and other clinicians should consider adopting CGM over SMBG, as it is associated with reductions in HbA1c, more favorable time- in-range profiles, and reduced hypoglycemia.

Download

Share

COinS