ReviewJournal of diabetes science and technology2026
Effectiveness of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Non-Intensively Managed Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 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
backgroundThe effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) not receiving intensive insulin therapy remains incompletely established, particularly regarding glycemic metrics beyond glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c).
methodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating real-time CGM (rtCGM) or intermittently scanned CGM (isCGM) in adults with T2D managed with non-intensive insulin regimens or non-insulin therapies. Databases were searched from inception to February 2026. Primary outcomes included HbA1c, mean glucose concentration, time in range (%TIR), time above range (%TAR), time below range (%TBR), body mass index (BMI), and patient-reported outcomes. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed using Stata 17. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool, version 2, and certainty of evidence was evaluated using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).
resultsTwenty-five RCTs were included. Continuous glucose monitoring significantly reduced HbA1c (mean difference [MD] -0.34, 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.46 to -0.23), mean glucose concentration (MD -13.97 mg/dL, 95% CI, -23.13 to -4.81), and %TAR (MD -6.75%, 95% CI, -10.81 to -2.70), while significantly increasing %TIR (MD +7.85%, 95% CI, 4.32-11.38). No significant effects were observed for BMI (MD -0.16 kg/m
conclusionsContinuous glucose monitoring probably improves glycemic control in adults with T2D not receiving intensive insulin therapy, particularly by reducing hyperglycemia and improving TIR, with limited effects on hypoglycemia or body weight.
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.