AG6

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.