Continuous glucose monitoring has been more frequently incorporated into studies that examine cognitive outcomes in people with diabetes. This scoping review sought to systematically map how continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has been applied in cognitive research among individuals with diabetes. The stated aims were to characterize current methodological approaches, identify key knowledge gaps, and inform future research directions.
The review was conducted using the Arksey and O'Malley scoping review framework. A systematic search covered five electronic databases: PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and PsycINFO. Cognitive outcomes extracted from eligible studies were organized according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) framework to provide a structured mapping of domains assessed.
A total of twenty-one studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the scoping review. The review type and reporting indicate that studies spanned different cognitive domains and used a variety of cognitive assessment instruments. Specific study-level details (such as sample sizes, population characteristics, device brands, or study durations) were not detailed in the abstract; those particulars were not reported in the source abstract.
Across included studies, CGM data completeness was consistently high. The review reports that between 84% and 100% of expected CGM data were captured in the studies examined. The authors interpret this as supportive evidence for the feasibility of intensive glucose monitoring when incorporated into cognitive research protocols involving people with diabetes.
Considerable heterogeneity was observed in the cognitive domains assessed and in the choice of assessment tools. Most studies evaluated executive function, memory, and attention. In contrast, domains such as psychomotor function, language, and self-reported or perceived cognitive function were less frequently assessed. The review found that more than ten distinct instruments were used to measure memory and executive function alone, illustrating a wide diversity of tools and limited standardization across the field.
The review notes that similar cognitive domains were investigated across studies regardless of which specific CGM metrics were employed. In other words, there was not a clear pattern in which particular glucose metrics were consistently matched to particular cognitive domains. This observation underscores variability in both the selection of CGM-derived metrics and the cognitive outcomes chosen by researchers.
Research examining CGM and cognitive function in diabetes is characterized by substantial methodological variability. Sources of heterogeneity include differences in the CGM metrics reported, the cognitive domains selected for assessment, and the variety of instruments used to measure the same domain (for example, more than ten instruments for memory and executive function). The authors identify this inconsistency as a barrier to cross-study comparability and meta-analytic synthesis.
The review emphasizes the need for greater standardization in both CGM reporting and cognitive assessment to improve comparability across studies. Standardized approaches would facilitate more consistent interpretation of how glucose patterns relate to cognitive outcomes and would help to advance the development of personalized interventions aimed at supporting cognitive health through optimized glucose management in people with diabetes.
The abstract reports that the article contains no studies with human or animal subjects performed by the authors. The authors declare no competing interests. The abstract does not report certain granular details (for example, study-level participant characteristics, specific CGM devices or exact CGM metrics used per study); where such specifics are absent from the source abstract, those details are not provided here.
This scoping review mapped current applications of CGM in cognitive research among people with diabetes and found high feasibility for CGM data collection (84–100% completeness) but substantial heterogeneity in cognitive domains assessed and the instruments used. The authors conclude that greater methodological standardization is needed to improve cross-study comparability and to support future CGM-informed research and personalized interventions targeting cognitive health in diabetes.