ArticleJournal of the Endocrine Society2026
Intermittently scanned CGM in older adults with type 2 diabetes not taking insulin: iMMEDIATE post hoc analysis.
Article in Journal of the Endocrine Society, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: In a post hoc analysis of data from the IMMEDIATE study, we compared mean percentage time in range (TIR) in study participants with T2D aged <65 and ≥65 years who were randomized to intermittent subcutaneous continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) plus diabetes self-management education (DSME) vs DSME alone. Methods: Glucose metrics were analyzed using a linear mixed-effects model, with fixed effects for treatment and age group and random effect for study site. Baseline HbA1c was included as a covariate. Patient-reported outcomes were also evaluated. Results: The majority of trial participants were aged <65 years, but percentages of adults aged <65 and ≥65 years were similar in the isCGM + DSME and DSME groups. When compared between age groups, mean differences in glycemic outcomes were not statistically significant. Hypoglycemia was infrequent. Among patients aged <65 years, a mean difference of 0.57 (95% CI, 0.38-0.77) in the Glucose Measurement Satisfaction Survey score was observed in participants receiving isCGM + DSME vs DSME; the difference was 0.12 (95% CI, -0.23 to 0.48) in adults aged ≥65 years, with a significant treatment-by-age group interaction ( Conclusion: Our findings support the use of isCGM plus DSME to increase TIR in adults with T2D who are not using insulin, independent of age.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.