Clinical evidence dossier
Continuous glucose monitoring
HbA1c
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
- 7
- Supporting studies available for review
- 7
- Randomized trials
- 3
- Reported effects
- 9
Clinical conclusion
Continuous glucose monitoring shows a strong positive evidence signal for improving HbA1c across the studied comparisons.
Observed effects
Observed study estimates; not a pooled treatment effect.
Change from baseline
Mean difference
-0.7 to -0.25 %
Between-group effect
Mean difference
-1.07 to 0.2 %
Change from baseline
Mean difference
-12 to 2.7 mmol/mol
Evidence composition
- Non-randomized studies
- 0
- Other designs
- 0
- Unresolved designs
- 4
- Magnitude-eligible effects
- 9
Consistency
Authoritative consistency classification
consistent
- Positive
- 6
- No effect
- 1
- Mixed
- 0
- Negative
- 0
Population and applicability
Structured population data were available for 7 of 7 supporting studies. Diabetes type was heterogeneous: 2 studies with type 2 diabetes, 1 studies with type 1 diabetes. 5 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.
- Adults with type 2 diabetes.
- Patients currently treated with GLP-1 receptor agonists.
- Adults with diabetes seeking improved management strategies
- Patients utilizing community pharmacy services for diabetes care
- Adults diagnosed with diabetes mellitus.
- Patients using continuous glucose monitoring devices.
- 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)
Limitations
- 4 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.
- 4 supporting studies have high, serious, critical, unclear, or unavailable risk-of-bias information.
Supporting evidence
Inspect the authoritative studies and omitted support records for this dossier.