Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Type 2 Diabetes: Clinical Outcomes, Disparities in Access, and Cost-effectiveness.

Giuliana Perini Villanueva, Walter M Solorzano, Estelle Everett

Abstract readReview

In one paragraph

Review in Current diabetes reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Giuliana Perini VillanuevaDavid Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.

Walter M SolorzanoDavid Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.

Estelle EverettDavid Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. eeverett@mednet.ucla.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewThis review summarizes recent evidence on continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D), focusing on clinical effectiveness, patient-reported outcomes, disparities in use, and policy and economic considerations. RECENT

findingsStudies from 2020 to 2025 show that CGM use in T2D is associated with consistent improvements in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), time in range, and diabetes self-management across insulin and non-insulin treatment regimens. Emerging observational data suggest reductions in mortality and health care utilization, and cost-effectiveness analyses consistently demonstrate that CGM represents a high-value intervention across payer settings. Despite these benefits, CGM uptake remains variable, with persistent disparities by age, race, and ethnicity, insurance coverage, and care setting. CGM is an effective and cost-effective tool for T2D management, but inequities in access limit its impact. Future research should address implementation in safety-net and primary care settings, evaluate over-the-counter CGM, and assess long-term clinical and health system outcomes.

Indexed as

Continuous Glucose MonitoringDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Healthcare DisparitiesHealth Services AccessibilityBlood GlucoseCost-Benefit AnalysisCost-Effectiveness AnalysisGlycated HemoglobinHumansBlood GlucoseGlycated HemoglobinContinuous glucose monitoringCost-effectivenessHealth disparitiesHealth policyType 2 diabetes

Identifiers

PMID42329523

DOI10.1007/s11892-026-01631-8

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.