Clinical Guidelines for Diabetes Monitoring

CLINICAL GUIDELINES FOR DIABETES MONITORING 1
Clinical Guidelines for Diabetes Monitoring
By [Name]
Course
Professor’s Name
Institution
Location of Institution
Date

CLINICAL GUIDELINES FOR DIABETES MONITORING 2
Introduction
The two clinical practice guidelines for Diabetes Monitoring are Self-Monitoring of
Blood Glucose (SMBG) and Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems (CGM). SMBG applies
Flash devices to check for the glucose levels in a diabetic individual (Parsons et al., 2017). The
patient wears the flash device for fourteen days to monitor the diabetic condition. The diabetic
client flashes the sensor on the device to get the glucose readings. The device records the levels
of glucose at the intervals of fifteen minutes (Overland et al., 2014). Specialists recommend that
the patients wear the device for twenty-four hours to monitor their diabetic states. The method is
useful for both type one and two diabetes mellitus.
CGM gauges the concentration of glucose in the fluids at the interstitial space (Bell et al.,
2015). The real-time CGM device displays time-to-time glucose levels. Additionally, the method
provides an alarm notification if the levels of glucose shoot above or below the normal
concentrations. However, a blinded CGM device records the glucose concentrations but fails to
display the readings. The caregiver has to download the readings from the blinded device to view
and analyze the results from a computer (Boom et al., 2014). This paper will critique the two
guidelines for diabetes monitoring using the AGREE II tool. The write-up will also explain why
CGM is better than SMBG and explain the differences between the two directions.
Critiquing the Two Guidelines using the AGREE II Tool
The score sheet for the SMBG guidelines is found in the first appendix. The authors of
the guidelines have described the objectives of the protocols. Additionally, the health question is
specific to the target population who are diabetic patients. The individuals who developed the
guidelines are distinguished doctors and professors in the medical field. The investigators
requested the preference and views of the diabetic patients before writing the procedures. The

CLINICAL GUIDELINES FOR DIABETES MONITORING 3
protocols patients with type one and two diabetes. The authors used information in the
COCHRANE library, and Pub MED sources to develop an evidence-based write-up.
The researchers used sources from the year 2010 to 2013 with information on the clinical
guidelines for diabetes monitoring. The paper also describes the strengths and limitation of the
study. One of the advantages is that it covers both the disadvantages and disadvantages of
SMBG. However, the boundaries of the research include the fact that the number of participants
is few; hence limiting its scope. The authors are also evident in the recommendations, benefits,
and disadvantages of the research. The document is peer-reviewed and indicates the procedures
of updating the content. The above qualifications allow caregivers to apply the report in caring
for diabetic patients. However, the authors fail to record competing interests. Therefore, the
guideline is of high quality and I would recommend caregivers to use it.
The score sheet for CGM is found in the second appendix. The authors of the protocol
have indicated its scope and purpose, as they have recorded the objectives, health questions, and
target population. The authors have relevant academic qualifications, and they also consider the
views of diabetic patients. The development of the procedures is thorough as the investigators
indicate relevant details of a research paper.
The researchers are clear on their recommendations. They also offer different options for
diabetes management. The evidence from the guidelines is applicable as it indicates the barriers
and facilitators of the protocols among other details. The CGM guideline advices the diabetic
patients on how to apply the recommendations in real life; however, it does not indicate auditing
criteria. Additionally, there is no indication on whether the funding body has influenced the
contents of the protocol or otherwise. The write-up had a recorder and addressed the competing
interests. Therefore, I highly recommend the application of the CGM guidelines.

CLINICAL GUIDELINES FOR DIABETES MONITORING 4
Advantages of CGM over SMBG Guidelines for Diabetes Monitoring
The CGM devices like the real-time equipment detect and record the glucose levels after
every five minutes. Therefore, the system indicates the current trends in the fluctuation of
diabetes status in the patient (Rodbard, 2016). However, the SMBG devices like the flash
indicator do not display a continuous reading of the sugar levels. The patient can take appropriate
measures at each reading time. The CGM devices provide the high and low glucose alarms, a
parameter that is absent in the SMBG guidelines. The diabetic client stays updated of the
readings throughout the day as opposed to SMBG that provides intermittent data. Furthermore,
CGM guidelines are appropriate for individuals who are eager to study the trends of blood sugar
fluctuations (Taylor, Thompson, and Brinkworth, 2018). The patient ties the device around the
arm as opposed to SMBG that requires the clients to prick their fingers before taking the
readings.
Patients find it easy to monitor their blood sugar levels during the day using the CGM
guidelines. However, clients using the SMBG can only check the standards of their blood sugar
when they flash the sensor (Ancona et al., 2017). The SMBG protocol makes it difficult to
monitor glucose levels; since it involves numerous finger-stick examinations. The built-in alarm
in the CGM systems enables the users to have tight control over their levels of blood glucose.
Recent research has indicated that CGM decreases the levels of A1C in children and adults
(Liberman et al., 2016). The protocol is also ideal with individuals who lack CSII but have type
diabetes type one. The Real-time CGM measurement saves the time for hypoglycemic
examinations. The protocol also suits pregnant women who are having either type two or one
diabetes. Diabetes patients should wear the CGM devices for an extended period to ensure
credible, accurate, and useful results.