Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41171276›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2025

Continuous Glucose Monitoring Frequency and Glycemic Control in People With Type 2 Diabetes.

Irl B Hirsch, Satish K Garg, Enrico Repetto, Janet Snell-Bergeon, Brian Ulmer, Christopher Perkins, Richard M Bergenstal

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Error in Tables and eFigure.JAMA network open · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Irl B HirschUniversity of Washington Medical School of Medicine, Seattle.
Satish K GargUniversity of Colorado School of Medicine, Barbara Davis Center for Diabetes, Aurora.
Enrico RepettoRoche Diagnostics, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Janet Snell-BergeonUniversity of Colorado School of Medicine, Barbara Davis Center for Diabetes, Aurora.
Brian UlmerRoche Diagnostics, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Christopher PerkinsRoche Diagnostics, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Richard M BergenstalInternational Diabetes Center, HealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

importanceThe association of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) frequency with glycemic control among people with type 2 diabetes has not been well-studied.

objectiveTo evaluate the association of CGM frequency with glycemic status over 12 months vs no CGM use. DESIGN, SETTING, AND

participantsThis retrospective, propensity score-matched, cross-sectional study used Optum deidentified Market Clarity Data (claims and electronic medical record data) obtained between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2023, including data from 6 months prior to each participant's index date with 12 months follow-up. Participants with type 2 diabetes, aged 18 years or older, and with hemoglobin A1C (HbA1C) levels between 7.0% to 15.0% at baseline were included. EXPOSURE: Number of days using CGM during the 12-month postindex period (frequency 1, ≥1 to ≤90 days; frequency 2, >90 to ≤180 days; frequency 3, 180 to ≤270 days; frequency 4, >270 days; control, no CGM use). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was change in HbA1C relative to frequency of CGM use vs no CGM. A mixed-model analysis was used to determine HbA1C changes across groups.

resultsThe analysis included 9258 patients (4207 female [45.4%]; mean [SD] age, 55.9 [10.6] years), with 4629 patients in the control group, 1081 in frequency 1, 523 in frequency 2, 540 in frequency 3, and 2485 in frequency 4. High CGM use (frequency 4) was associated with greater reductions in HbA1C at 12 months (-1.52 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.73 to -1.32 percentage points) vs no CGM use (-0.63 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.80 to -0.45 percentage points). CGM users experienced the greatest reductions at approximately 3 months (frequency 1: -0.59 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.96 to -0.21 percentage points; frequency 2: -0.57 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.10 to -0.05 percentage points; frequency 3: -0.79 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.25 to -0.34 percentage points; frequency 4: -0.91 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.12 to -0.70 percentage points) compared with control patients (-0.28 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.47 to -0.09 percentage points). No further glycemic improvement was observed in frequency 2 and frequency 3 groups after 6 months. Improvements in patients in frequency 1 and frequency 4 groups were sustained for the duration of the postindex period. The addition of a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist in the frequency 4 group was associated with an HbA1C treatment difference of -1.13 percentage points (95% CI, -1.46 to -0.80 percentage points) vs controls at approximately 12 months. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This cross-sectional study found that frequent use of CGM (>75% sensor wear) was associated with improved glycemic control compared with infrequent or no use of CGM. These findings suggest that clinicians should monitor CGM use at 6 months, identify potential therapeutic obstacles, and encourage continuous use of CGM.

Indexed as

Blood GlucoseBlood Glucose Self-MonitoringDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Glycemic ControlAdultAgedContinuous Glucose MonitoringCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleGlycated HemoglobinHumansMaleMiddle AgedPropensity ScoreRetrospective StudiesBlood GlucoseGlycated Hemoglobin

Identifiers

PMID41171276
PMCPMC12579344

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.