Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40781797›Full record

ArticleJournal of diabetes science and technology2025

Does Continuous Glucose Monitoring Use Prompt Greater Engagement in Self-Management? A Randomized Controlled Trial Focusing on Adults With Type 2 Diabetes.

William H Polonsky, Emily C Soriano, Fleur Levrat-Guillen, Mariya Chichmarenko, Haley Sandoval, Alessandra Bastian, Addie L Fortmann, Andrew Kwist, Michael Vallis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

William H PolonskyBehavioral Diabetes Institute, San Diego, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9064-6144
Emily C SorianoScripps Health, San Diego, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1069-9324
Fleur Levrat-GuillenAbbott Diabetes Care, Alameda, CA, USA.
Mariya ChichmarenkoScripps Health, San Diego, CA, USA.
Haley SandovalScripps Health, San Diego, CA, USA.
Alessandra BastianScripps Health, San Diego, CA, USA.
Addie L FortmannScripps Health, San Diego, CA, USA.
Andrew KwistAbbott Diabetes Care, Alameda, CA, USA.
Michael VallisDalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundContinuous glucose monitoring (CGM) promotes glycemic benefits in adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D), including insulin users as well as noninsulin users, often with minimal professional support. To investigate whether these benefits may stem from increased user engagement in self-management, we conducted a randomized controlled trial comparing the impact of CGM versus self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) on self-reported engagement and HbA1c in CGM-naïve adults with T2D.

methodsPotential participants completed the Impact of Glucose Monitoring on Self-Management Scale (IGMSS) and an HbA1c home test to confirm eligibility (>7.5%). N = 110 eligible participants were randomized to receive a FreeStyle Libre 3 (CGM arm) or a FreeStyle Precision Neo Blood Glucose Monitoring System (SMBG arm). The IGMSS and HbA1c home test were repeated after three months. Latent change score models estimated group differences in outcomes over time.

resultsCGM users reported significantly greater engagement with T2D self-management than SMBG users (IGMSS total b = 0.61,

conclusionsThese findings suggest that introducing CGM to adults with T2D heightens users' engagement with their own diabetes care and also improves glycemic control more than providing SMBG.

Indexed as

CGMengagementself-managementtype 2 diabetes

Identifiers

PMID40781797
PMCPMC12335428

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.