READ BELOW-
The systematic review and meta-analysis conducted by Jancev et al. (2024) appropriately
addressed the researchers’ stated question regarding whether continuous glucose
monitoring (CGM) improves glycemic outcomes in adults with type 2 diabetes. The
research question determined the eLectiveness of CGM compared to self-monitoring of
blood glucose across multiple randomized controlled trials and a systematic review with
meta-analysis represented the methodological approach. Meta-analysis is particularly well
suited to intervention questions because it provides a pooled estimate of treatment eLect,
increases statistical power, and evaluates consistency across studies (Higgins et al.,
2022). Therefore, the chosen design aligns directly with the purpose of quantifying change
in HbA1c and CGM-derived glycemic metrics, supporting its methods.
The search process reported by Jancev et al. (2024) was largely comprehensive and
reproducible. The authors identified major biomedical databases. According to PRISMA
guidelines, listing databases, eligibility criteria, and a pre-registered protocol increases
transparency and replicability (Page et al., 2021). While the publication notes that full
search strings were provided in supplementary materials, the level of detail included in the
methods section demonstrates that another researcher could reasonably reproduce the
search strategy and identify the same body of evidence.
Based on the Johns Hopkins Individual Evidence Summary Tool, the review by Jancev et
al. (2024) provides evidence for an intervention that may be appropriate for translation into
practice. The meta-analysis demonstrated that CGM produced a statistically significant
improvement in HbA1c (approximately –0.31%) and a meaningful increase in time-in-range,
which is associated with improved glycemic stability. These outcomes, supported by Level I
evidence, suggest that real-time CGM may benefit adults with type 2 diabetes, particularly
those with suboptimal control or frequent hypoglycemia. As the Johns Hopkins tool
emphasizes the importance of evidence quality, outcome significance, and feasibility,
CGM represents a reasonable candidate for practice change—especially when
implemented in a phased or targeted manner to address workflow, cost, and insurance
considerations.
This systematic review is appropriate to support analysis of a practice problem related to
poor glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes. The review is very recent on
randomized controlled trials, and its rigorous analytic methods strengthen its relevance
and utility for evidence-based practice. Although HbA1c improvements were modest, the
consistency of findings across multiple trials and the improvements in time provide
meaningful support for interventions aimed at enhancing glucose monitoring and patient
engagement (Jancev et al., 2024). Overall, this review would be a strong component of the
evidence base informing a DNP practice change project focused on implementing CGM or
improving diabetes self-management strategies.
INSTRUCTIONS BELOW-
Respond to above by furthering dialogue by providing more information and clarification,
thereby adding more depth to the discussion.
This response requires two literature sources.
c. A scholarly source is (a) evidence-based, (b) peer-reviewed, and (c) published in the last
five (5) years.
Professionalism in Communication
a. References are consistent with APA style/formatting with no error patterns; the hanging
indent is not required.
b. Presents information in an organized manner.
c. Uses clear and concise language.
d. Communicates with no error patterns in English grammar, spelling, syntax, and
punctuation.
Writing Requirements (APA style/formatting)
· In-text citations
· Reference list in correct APA style/formatting
· Standard English usage and mechanics
· A scholarly source is (a) evidence-based, (b) peer-reviewed, and (c) published in the last
five (5) years.
· Response post(s) may require a scholarly citation and reference.
