Clinical evidence dossier
Continuous glucose monitoring
Time in range
Evidence signal
Authoritative evidence signal
strong
This is an authoritative evidence signal supplied by Clinical Reference. It is not a formal clinical grade, treatment recommendation, or pooled effect estimate.
Evidence snapshot
- Authoritative support records
- 6
- Supporting studies available for review
- 6
- Randomized trials
- 3
- Reported effects
- 10
Clinical conclusion
Continuous glucose monitoring shows a moderate positive evidence signal for improving Time in range across the studied comparisons.
The conclusion and evidence-signal classification are distinct authoritative fields and are reproduced as published.
Observed effects
Observed study estimates; not a pooled treatment effect.
Change from baseline
Absolute change
5.8 to 5.8 percentage points
Change from baseline
Mean difference
-3.1 to 10.3 %
Between-group effect
Mean difference
-6.55 to 7.46 %
Evidence composition
- Non-randomized studies
- 0
- Other designs
- 0
- Unresolved designs
- 3
- Magnitude-eligible effects
- 8
Consistency
Authoritative consistency classification
consistent
- Positive
- 5
- No effect
- 1
- Mixed
- 0
- Negative
- 0
Population and applicability
Structured population data were available for 6 of 6 supporting studies. Diabetes type was heterogeneous: 1 studies with type 1 diabetes, 1 studies with type 2 diabetes. 3 studies described adult participants.
This population information refers to the materialized supporting studies available for review. Omitted support records remain part of the authoritative support accounting and are available through the audit experience.
View reported population descriptions
These descriptions are reported across the supporting studies; they are not a single synthesized population.
- Patients with chronic pancreatitis.
- Individuals with insulin-treated diabetes.
- Adults with diabetes seeking improved management strategies
- Patients utilizing community pharmacy services for diabetes care
- Adults and children with type 1 diabetes.
- Individuals living in rural areas with limited access to diabetes care.
- Individuals with Type 1 diabetes managing their condition.
- Individuals with Type 2 diabetes seeking improved glycemic control.
- Young Adult (19–39)
- Middle Aged (40-64)
- Male
- Female
Limitations
- 3 relevant studies have unresolved authoritative design evidence and do not contribute to design-specific or RoB-specific claims.
- 1 supporting study does not have a displayable topic-matched quantitative effect.
- Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: active_comparator, baseline_within_group, unknown_unresolved, usual_care.
- 3 supporting studies have high, serious, critical, unclear, or unavailable risk-of-bias information.
- 3 of 6 studies with duration data have follow-up of 12 weeks or less.
Supporting evidence
Inspect the authoritative studies and omitted support records for this dossier.