Use of Continuous Glucose Monitors in Exercise Research Studies—A Scoping Review on Study Characteristics and Common Practices

This review examined study characteristics and common practices in continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-based exercise studies. Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic search in the PubMed database was conducted. Data were extracted from 93 publications. A minority of studies (12.9%) focused on CGM system validation. Acute exercise studies were more common (87.1%) than chronic exercise studies (12.9%). Randomized crossover designs predominated (71.0%). Participant populations varied and included 46.2% non-diabetic individuals (7.5% athletes), 36.6% individuals with type 1 diabetes mellitus, and 17.2% individuals with type 2. The upper arm was the most common sensor placement site (41.9%), although nearly one-third of studies did not report placement details. Devices were primarily from Abbott (40.9%), Medtronic (36.6%), and Dexcom (26.9%). Sample sizes were typically small, with 40.9% of studies including 10–14 participants. Reporting practices frequently deviated from the International Consensus Statement on CGM Metrics for Clinical Trials. Many studies used modified or non-standard metrics, whereas “mean sensor glucose” was reported in compliance with consensus recommendations in 58.1% of studies. Regarding data completeness, “data gaps” was the most frequently reported consensus-compliant metric (43.0%). In validation studies, accuracy metrics predominated, with “absolute relative difference” representing the most common outcome (87.5%). Overall, substantial heterogeneity limits comparability across studies, highlighting the need for standardized CGM reporting.