English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Background  The study objective was to evaluate the effects of professional continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) as an adjuvant educational tool for improving glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).    Methods  We conducted a three-month quasi-experimental study with an intervention (IGr) and control group (CGr) and ex-ante and ex-post evaluations in one family medicine clinic in Mexico City. Participants were T2D patients with HbA1c > 8% attending a comprehensive diabetes care program. In addition to the program, the IGr wore a professional CGM sensor (iPro™2) during the first 7 days of the study. Following this period, IGr participants had a medical consultation for the CGM results and treatment adjustments. Additionally, they received an educational session and personalized diet plan from a dietitian. After 3 months, the IGr again wore the CGM sensor for 1 week. The primary outcome variable was HbA1c level measured at baseline and 3 months after the CGM intervention. We analyzed the effect of the intervention on HbA1c levels by estimating the differences-in-differences treatment effect (Diff-in-Diff). Additionally, baseline and three-month CGM and dietary information were recorded for the IGr and analyzed using the Student’s paired t-test and mixed-effects generalized linear models to control for patients’ baseline characteristics.    Results  Overall, 302 T2D patients participated in the study (IGr,  n  = 150; control,  n  = 152). At the end of the three-month follow-up, we observed 0.439 mean HbA1C difference between groups ( p  = 0.004), with an additional decrease in HbA1c levels in the IGr compared with the CGr (Diff-in-Diff HbA1c mean of − 0.481% points,  p  = 0.023). Moreover, compared with the baseline, the three-month CGM patterns showed a significant increase in the percentage of time in glucose range (+ 7.25;  p  = 0.011); a reduction in the percentage of time above 180 mg/dl (− 6.01;  p  = 0.045), a decrease in glycemic variability (− 3.94,  p  = 0.034); and improvements in dietary patterns, shown by a reduction in total caloric intake (− 197.66 Kcal/day;  p  = 0.0001).    Conclusion  Professional CGM contributes to reducing HbA1c levels and is an adjuvant educational tool that can improve glycemic control in patients with T2D.    Trial registration  ClinicalTrials.gov:  NCT04667728 . Registered 16/12/2020

bmc endocrine disorders

The effects of professional continuous glucose monitoring as an adjuvant educational tool for improving glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes