A.Giaccari1 · G. Gliozzo1 · G. Ciccarelli1 · G. Di Giuseppe1 · C. Castellano2 · S. Cum3 · L. Delle Monache4,13 · M. Gallo5 ·M.Lastretti6 · G. Medea7 · M. Monesi8 · R. Napoli9 · B. Pintaudi10 · E. Succurro11 · G. Turchetti
Received: 9 January 2026 / Accepted: 17 March 2026 © The Author(s) 2026
Abstract
Background and aims Although continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices are now standard of care among Type 1 diabetes patients, they are still relatively underutilized in Type 2 diabetes (T2D), particularly in those patients not treated with insulin. Widespread adoption continues to be hindered by a combination of factors. Chief among these is the scarcity of long-term, large-scale clinical trials demonstrating the benefits of the use of CGM in T2D. This meta-analysis aimed to address this gap by comparing CGM with self-blood glucose monitoring (SBMG), with primary outcomes of HbA1c and time in range (TIR) in insulin-treated and non-insulin-treated TD2 patients.
Methods and results Following the stringent rules mandated by our National Health Service (which requires a panel com-posed of all stakeholders involved in diabetes treatment, and includes PICO, GRADE, AGREE, and meta-analyses), we performed a systematic review of RCTs that enrolled two groups of individuals with T2D, those treated with insulin (includ-ing basal and basal-bolus regimens), and those receiving treatments other than insulin. All included trials compared CGM with structured blood glucose monitoring (SBGM) with glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) as the main endpoint. Based on the strength and consistency of the evidence, the panel issued a strong recommendation in favor of CGM for individuals with T2D treated with insulin (including those on basal insulin alone) and for individuals with T2D not treated with insulin, par-ticularly for those with glycated hemoglobin levels≥7%. From a pharmacoeconomic perspective, outcomes were positive in both patient groups.
Conclusion CGM represents a clinically effective and cost-efficient approach to optimizing glycemic control in T2D, becom-ing mandatory among individuals on insulin therapy. Our findings support a shift in clinical practice toward the more widespread use of CGM in T2D, with regulatory frameworks and reimbursement policies needing to adapt accordingly.
Keywords CGM · Type 2 Diabetes · Metanalysis · PICO · GRADE · Guidelines
Communicated by Massimo Federici, M.D.
A. Giaccari 该Email地址已收到反垃圾邮件插件保护。要显示它您需要在浏览器中启用JavaScript。
1 Center for Endocrine and Metabolic Diseases, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS and Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy
2 Azienda USL of Modena, Sassuolo Hospital, Sassuolo, Italy
3 Diabetes and Diabetic Foot Care Unit, ASUGI, Monfalcone, Italy
4 National Board Member of FAND (Italian Association for the Rights of Diabetic People), Roma, Italy
5 Department of Endocrinology and Metabolic Diseases, AO SS. Antonio e Biagio e Cesare Arrigo, Alessandria, Italy
6 Order of Psychologists of Lazio, Rome, Italy
7 Italian Society of General Medicine (SIMG), Florence, Italy
8 Territorial Diabetology Unit, AUSL Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy
9 Department of Translational Medical Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy
10 Diabetes Unit, Niguarda Cà Granda Hospital, Milan, Italy
11 Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, Magna Graecia University, Catanzaro, Italy
12 Institute of Management, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Pisa, Italy
13 Patient Advocacy Lab, ALTEMS – Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy
版权归中华医学会所有。
未经授权，不得转载、摘编本刊文章。
引用本文：简喜超, 简扬, 邓呈亮. 2025版《中国糖尿病足防治实践指南》解读[J]. 中华医学美学美容杂志, 2026, 32(2): 99-103. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn114657-20251215-00266.
通信作者：邓呈亮，Email：该Email地址已收到反垃圾邮件插件保护。要显示它您需要在浏览器中启用JavaScript。
Francis Lovecchio1 · Grant J. Riew2 · Dino Samartzis3,4 · Philip K. Louie5 · Niccole Germscheid6 · Howard S. An3,4 ·
Jason Pui Yin Cheung7 · Norman Chutkan8 · Gary Michael Mallow3,4 · Marko H. Neva9 · Frank M. Phillips3,4 ·
Daniel M. Sciubba10 · Mohammad El‑Sharkawi11 · Marcelo Valacco12 · Michael H. McCarthy13 · Melvin C. Makhni2 ·
Sravisht Iyer1
1 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA
2 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
3 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA
4 The International Spine Research and Innovation Initiative, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA
5 Neuroscience Institute, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA
6 Research Department, AO Spine International, Davos, Switzerland
7 Department of Orthopaedics & Traumatology, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China
8 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Phoenix, AZ, USA
9 Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland
10 Department of Neurosurgery, Baltimore, MD, USA, John Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA
11 Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Assiut University Medical School, Assiut, Egypt
12 Department of Orthopaedics, Churruca Hospital de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina
13 Indiana Spine Group, Carmel, IN, USA
Received: 22 September 2020 / Accepted: 27 October 2020 / Published online: 22 November 2020
© The Author(s) 2020
Purpose To utilize data from a global spine surgeon survey to elucidate (1) overall confidence in the telemedicine evaluation and (2) determinants of provider confidence.
Methods Members of AO Spine International were sent a survey encompassing participant’s experience with, perception of,and comparison of telemedicine to in-person visits. The survey was designed through a Delphi approach, with four rounds of
question review by the multi-disciplinary authors. Data were stratified by provider age, experience, telemedicine platform, trust in telemedicine, and specialty.
Results Four hundred and eighty-five surgeons participated in the survey. The global effort included respondents from Africa (19.9%), Asia Pacific (19.7%), Europe (24.3%), North America (9.4%), and South America (26.6%). Providers felt that physical exam-based tasks (e.g., provocative testing, assessing neurologic deficits/myelopathy, etc.) were inferior to inperson exams, while communication-based aspects (e.g., history taking, imaging review, etc.) were equivalent. Participants who performed greater than 50 visits were more likely to believe telemedicine was at least equivalent to in-person visits in the ability to make an accurate diagnosis (OR 2.37, 95% C.I. 1.03–5.43). Compared to in-person encounters, video (versus phone only) visits were associated with increased confidence in the ability of telemedicine to formulate and communicate a treatment plan (OR 3.88, 95% C.I. 1.71–8.84).
Conclusion Spine surgeons are confident in the ability of telemedicine to communicate with patients, but are concerned about its capacity to accurately make physical exam-based diagnoses. Future research should concentrate on standardizing the remote examination and the development of appropriate use criteria in order to increase provider confidence in telemedicine technology.
Keywords Telemedicine · Spine surgery · Examination · International · Survey
Sonu Bhaskar, Sian Bradley, [...], and Maciej Banach Additional article information
Technological innovations such as artificial intelligence and robotics may be of potential use in telemedicine and in building capacity to respond to future pandemics beyond the current COVID-19 era. Our international consortium of interdisciplinary experts in clinical medicine, health policy, and telemedicine have identified gaps in uptake and implementation of telemedicine or telehealth across geographics and medical specialties. This paper discusses various artificial intelligence and robotics-assisted telemedicine or telehealth applications during COVID-19 and presents an alternative artificial intelligence assisted telemedicine framework to accelerate the rapid deployment of telemedicine and improve access to quality and cost-effective healthcare. We postulate that the artificial intelligence assisted telemedicine framework would be indispensable in creating futuristic and resilient health systems that can support communities amidst pandemics.
Keywords: telehealth, digital medicine, pandemic (COVID-19), robotics, telemedicine, artificial intelligence, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)
Caleb Schroeder ⁎
Mary Lanning Healthcare, 715 N Kansas Ave., Suite 205, Hastings, NE, 68901
article info
Article history:
Received 7 February 2019
Received in revised form 5 June 2019
Accepted 17 June 2019
Available online 12 July 2019
Background: Telemedicine has had limited implementation for general surgery. The purpose of this study was to evaluate telemedicine for the initial evaluation of patients in the clinic and hospital settings.
Methods: Synchronous telemedicine consults were conducted by a single surgeon to a rural hospital and clinic. Reasons for consult, adequacy of consult, days saved by telemedicine consult compared to standard practice, correlation of telemedicine and in-person physical exam, and number of patients who required procedures were evaluated.
Results: On average, patients were evaluated 7.4 days more rapidly than if the consult had been done by our standard practice. Telemedicine was adequate for all patients in this study.
Conclusions: This is the first study using telemedicine for the initial consult of general surgery patients in the hospitalized and clinic setting in North America. The physical exam remains an important component of the general surgery evaluation, and special attention must be considered when structuring the telemedicine program. Telemedicine is an effective and expedient way to provide consultation for general surgery patients. Further study is needed to determine which general surgery issues are not amendable to telemedicine consultation, and to determine other surgical specialties that could utilize telemedicine in their practice.
© 2019 The Author. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Yanyan Bian* , MD; Yongbo Xiang* , MD; Bingdu Tong, MA; Bin Feng, MD; Xisheng Weng, MD
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Science and Peking Union Medical College,
Beijing, China
* these authors contributed equally
Corresponding Author:
Xisheng Weng, MD Department of Orthopedic Surgery Peking Union Medical College Hospital Chinese Academy of Medical Science and Peking Union Medical College No 1 Shuaifuyuan, Dongcheng District Beijing, 100073 China Phone: 86 13021159994
Email: 该Email地址已收到反垃圾邮件插件保护。要显示它您需要在浏览器中启用JavaScript。
Background: Patient follow-up is an essential part of hospital ward management. With the development of deep learning algorithms, individual follow-up assignments might be completed by artificial intelligence (AI). We developed an AI-assisted
follow-up conversational agent that can simulate the human voice and select an appropriate follow-up time for quantitative, automatic, and personalized patient follow-up. Patient feedback and voice information could be collected and converted into text data automatically.
Objective: The primary objective of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of AI-assisted follow-up to manual follow-up of patients after surgery. The secondary objective was to compare the feedback from AI-assisted follow-up to feedback
from manual follow-up.
Methods: The AI-assisted follow-up system was adopted in the Orthopedic Department of Peking Union Medical College Hospital in April 2019. A total of 270 patients were followed up through this system. Prior to that, 2656 patients were followed
up by phone calls manually. Patient characteristics, telephone connection rate, follow-up rate, feedback collection rate, time spent, and feedback composition were compared between the two groups of patients.
Results: There was no statistically significant difference in age, gender, or disease between the two groups. There was no significant difference in telephone connection rate (manual: 2478/2656, 93.3%; AI-assisted: 249/270, 92.2%; P=.50) or successful follow-up rate (manual: 2301/2478, 92.9%; AI-assisted: 231/249, 92.8%; P=.96) between the two groups. The time spent on 100 patients in the manual follow-up group was about 9.3 hours. In contrast, the time spent on the AI-assisted follow-up was close to 0 hours. The feedback rate in the AI-assisted follow-up group was higher than that in the manual follow-up group (manual: 68/2656, 2.5%; AI-assisted: 28/270, 10.3%; P<.001). The composition of feedback was different in the two groups. Feedback from the AI-assisted follow-up group mainly included nursing, health education, and hospital environment content, while feedback from the manual follow-up group mostly included medical consultation content.
Conclusions: The effectiveness of AI-assisted follow-up was not inferior to that of manual follow-up. Human resource costs are saved by AI. AI can help obtain comprehensive feedback from patients, although its depth and pertinence of communication need to be improved.
(J Med Internet Res 2020;22(5):e16896) doi: 10.2196/16896
KEYWORDS
artificial intelligence; conversational agent; follow-up; cost-effectiveness
Yu-xuan Li1† , Chang-zheng He1† , Yi-chen Liu1† , Peng-yue Zhao1 , Xiao-lei Xu1 , Yu-feng Wang2 , Shao-you Xia1* and Xiao-hui Du1
Background:The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been declared a global pandemic by the World Health Organization. Patients with cancer are more likely to incur poor clinical outcomes. Due to the prevailing pandemic, we propose some surgical strategies for gastric cancer patients.
Methods: The ‘COVID-19’ period was defined as occurring between 2020 and 01-20 and 2020-03-20. The enrolled patients were divided into two groups, pre-COVID-19 group (PCG) and COVID-19 group (CG). A total of 109 patients with gastric cancer were enrolled in this study.
Results: The waiting time before admission increased by 4 days in the CG (PCG: 4.5 [IQR: 2, 7.8] vs. CG: 8.0 [IQR: 2, 20]; p = 0.006). More patients had performed chest CT scans besides abdominal CT before admission during the COVID-19 period (PCG: 22 [32%] vs. CG: 30 [73%], p = 0.001). After admission during the COVID period, the waiting time before surgery was longer (PCG: 3[IQR: 2,5] vs. CG: 7[IQR: 5,9]; p < 0.001), more laparoscopic surgeries were performed (PCG: 51[75%] vs. CG: 38[92%], p = 0.021), and hospital stay period after surgery was longer (7[IQR: 6,8] vs.9[IQR:7,11]; p < 0.001). In addition, the total cost of hospitalization increased during this period, (PCG: 9.22[IQR: 7.82,10.97] vs. CG: 10.42[IQR:8.99,12.57]; p = 0.006).
Conclusion: This study provides an opportunity for our surgical colleagues to reflect on their own services and any contingency plans they may have to tackle the COVID-19 crisis.
Keywords: Gastric cancer, Coronavirus disease 2019, COVID-19, Retrospective analysis
Grace F. Chao, MD, MSc, Kathleen Y. Li, MD, MSc, [...], and Chad Ellimoottil, MD, MSc
Additional article information
What were telehealth use patterns across surgical specialties before and during the COVID-19 pandemic?
In this statewide cohort study that included 4405 surgeons, telehealth use grew substantially during the early pandemic period and declined during the later period; this use varied by surgical specialty. Compared with 2019 visit volume, telehealth salvaged only a small portion of 2020 surgical visits.
Telehealth is being used in surgical fields at rates higher than before the pandemic, and its use varies across surgical specialties.
伤口世界平台生态圈，以“关爱人间所有伤口患者”为愿景，连接、整合和拓展线上和线下的管理慢性伤口的资源，倡导远程、就近和居家管理慢性伤口，解决伤口专家的碎片化时间的价值创造、诊疗经验的裂变复制、和患者的就近、居家和低成本管理慢性伤口的问题。
2019广东省医疗行业协会伤口管理分会年会
扫一扫了解详情:
任何关于疾病的建议都不能替代执业医师的面对面诊断。所有门诊时间仅供参考，最终以医院当日公布为准。
网友、医生言论仅代表其个人观点，不代表本站同意其说法，请谨慎参阅，本站不承担由此引起的法律责任。