CGM Time in Range

Ver informe de evidencia

Evidence on improving cgm time in range

Evidence related to CGM Time in Range.

Crea tu Evidence Workspace

Guarda evidencia sobre los temas que te importan.

Studies

100

Evidence Pairs

Extensive Research

Evidence Base: 71/100

Evidence Intelligence™

Evidence Summary

A structured summary of where the evidence is strongest, mixed, or still emerging.

Executive Summary

CGM Time in Range evidence appears to center on Hybrid closed-loop system.

Among 79 indexed studies and 52 interventions, the strongest signals are summarized from the available evidence. Hybrid closed-loop system appears to be one of the clearer current evidence signals.

Evidence is consistently positive across multiple studies.
Some evidence is positive, but results are not consistent across all studies.
Early findings are encouraging, but stronger trials are needed.

Caution

This summary reflects the currently indexed evidence and should not be interpreted as treatment advice.

Key Finding

Evidence is consistently positive across multiple studies.

Interventions with strongest consistent evidence

Strongest consistent evidence

Why it matters

Consistent positive findings are easier to interpret than isolated or mixed results.

Interpretation

Hybrid closed-loop system appears to have a consistent beneficial signal in the indexed evidence.

View supporting studies

Evidence basis: 20 evidence pairs - 34 studies

Why this appears here

Strong evidenceGenerally consistentPositive effect signalMultiple RCTsConsistent resultsModerate evidence

Hybrid closed-loop system

17 studies

EvidenceScore™

88/100

ConsistencyScore™

52/100

Continuous glucose monitoring

10 studies

EvidenceScore™

86/100

ConsistencyScore™

42/100

Evidence Snapshot

Studies

Interventions

Outcomes

Strong evidence signals

Mixed evidence areas

Key Findings

Key patterns and insights identified across the research landscape

Moderate positive signal

Hybrid closed-loop system may improve Time in range

Hybrid closed-loop system → Time in range

Across 17 studies, Hybrid closed-loop system shows a moderate positive signal for Time in range.

17 studies

EvidenceScore™: 87.87692307692308/100

View supporting studies

Moderate positive signal

Continuous glucose monitoring may improve Time in range

Continuous glucose monitoring → Time in range

Across 8 studies, Continuous glucose monitoring shows a consistent moderate positive signal for Time in range.

8 studies

EvidenceScore™: 85.53846153846153/100

View supporting studies

Moderate positive signal

Insulin therapy may improve Time in range

Insulin therapy → Time in range

Across 5 studies, Insulin therapy shows a moderate positive signal for Time in range.

5 studies

EvidenceScore™: 81.76923076923077/100

View supporting studies

Evidence signal

Continuous glucose monitoring shows evidence for Time below range

Continuous glucose monitoring → Time below range

Across 4 studies, Continuous glucose monitoring shows a consistent evidence signal for Time below range.

4 studies

EvidenceScore™: 79/100

View supporting studies

Neutral signal

Low-carbohydrate diet shows limited or neutral effect on Time in range

Low-carbohydrate diet → Time in range

Across 3 studies, Low-carbohydrate diet shows a neutral signal for Time in range.

3 studies

EvidenceScore™: 79/100

View supporting studies

Supporting Evidence

Mixed or conflicting evidence

Some evidence is positive, but results are not consistent across all studies.

Areas where results are mixed

Why it matters

Mixed results suggest effects may depend on population, comparator, duration, or study design.

Interpretation

Hybrid closed-loop system is mixed in the currently indexed evidence.

Caution

Some supporting studies reported neutral, negative, or mixed findings.

Top entities

Hybrid closed-loop system

Continuous glucose monitoring

Hybrid closed-loop system

17 studies

EvidenceScore™

88/100

ConsistencyScore™

52/100

Why this appears here

Mixed Or Conflicting ResultsPositive Signal PresentNeutral Results PresentNegative Results Present

Evidence basis: 24 evidence pairs - 36 studies

View supporting studies

Promising but understudied

Early findings are encouraging, but stronger trials are needed.

Promising areas needing more evidence

Why it matters

Promising signals can guide further review, but they should not be treated as settled evidence.

Interpretation

Aerobic exercise may have a beneficial signal, but the evidence base is still developing.

Caution

Current support is limited by study volume, RCT depth, or evidence strength.

Top entities

Aerobic exercise

Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP)

Aerobic exercise

2 studies

EvidenceScore™

69/100

ConsistencyScore™

100/100

Why this appears here

Positive effect signalLimited study volume

Evidence basis: 13 evidence pairs - 12 studies

View supporting studies

Explore the Evidence

The sections below provide the complete evidence questions, supporting relationships, and underlying studies behind the summary above.

Preguntas respondidas por la evidencia

What improves cgm time in range?

outcome achievement

Emerging Evidence

Insulin therapy, Continuous glucose monitoring, and Hybrid closed-loop system are among the most studied approaches for CGM Time in Range.

ConsistencyScore™: Consistency cannot yet be determined from the available evidence.

Evidence caveat: The evidence includes both beneficial and harmful or worsening results.

Ranked evidence signals

1
Hybrid closed-loop system
EvidenceScore™ Strong | EvidenceScore™ 87.9 | moderate positive | ConsistencyScore™ Generally Consistent | 17 studies
2
Continuous glucose monitoring
EvidenceScore™ Strong | EvidenceScore™ 85.5 | moderate positive | ConsistencyScore™ Consistent | 10 studies
3
Insulin therapy
EvidenceScore™ Strong | EvidenceScore™ 81.8 | moderate positive | ConsistencyScore™ Generally Consistent | 7 studies

Why this answer: This answer is cautious because the available studies report mixed findings.

Limitations

Consistency cannot yet be determined.
Population details are unavailable.

Does Insulin therapy improve cgm time in range?

intervention effectiveness

Moderate Evidence

Insulin therapy may improve Time in range.

ConsistencyScore™: Results are mixed and should be interpreted cautiously.

Evidence caveat: The evidence includes both beneficial and harmful or worsening results.

Ranked evidence signals

1
Insulin therapy
EvidenceScore™ Strong | EvidenceScore™ 81.8 | moderate positive | ConsistencyScore™ Generally Consistent | 7 studies

Why this answer: This answer is cautious because the available studies report mixed findings.

Limitations

Population details are unavailable.

Does Continuous glucose monitoring improve cgm time in range?

intervention effectiveness

Strong Evidence

Continuous glucose monitoring may improve Time in range.

ConsistencyScore™: Results are consistent across studies.

Evidence caveat: The evidence includes both beneficial and harmful or worsening results.

Ranked evidence signals

1
Continuous glucose monitoring
EvidenceScore™ Strong | EvidenceScore™ 85.5 | moderate positive | ConsistencyScore™ Consistent | 10 studies

Why this answer: This answer is cautious because the available studies report mixed findings.

Limitations

Population details are unavailable.

Does Hybrid closed-loop system improve cgm time in range?

intervention effectiveness

Strong Evidence

Hybrid closed-loop system may improve Time in range.

ConsistencyScore™: Results are consistent across studies.

Ranked evidence signals

1
Hybrid closed-loop system
EvidenceScore™ Strong | EvidenceScore™ 87.9 | moderate positive | ConsistencyScore™ Generally Consistent | 17 studies

Why this answer: This answer is based on 17 supporting studies with consistent results and a positive effect signal.

Limitations

Population details are unavailable.

Insulin therapy vs Continuous glucose monitoring for cgm time in range?

compare

Strong Evidence

Insulin therapy and Continuous glucose monitoring have available evidence for CGM Time in Range, but the comparison requires review of the underlying studies.

ConsistencyScore™: Results are mixed and should be interpreted cautiously.

Evidence caveat: The evidence includes both beneficial and harmful or worsening results.

Ranked evidence signals

1
Continuous glucose monitoring
EvidenceScore™ Strong | EvidenceScore™ 85.5 | moderate positive | ConsistencyScore™ Consistent | 10 studies
2
Insulin therapy
EvidenceScore™ Strong | EvidenceScore™ 81.8 | moderate positive | ConsistencyScore™ Generally Consistent | 7 studies

Why this answer: This answer is cautious because the available studies report mixed findings.

Limitations

Population details are unavailable.

How can I lower time in range?

sub outcome

Emerging Evidence

Insulin therapy, Continuous glucose monitoring, and Hybrid closed-loop system are among the most studied approaches for Time in range.

ConsistencyScore™: Consistency cannot yet be determined from the available evidence.

Evidence caveat: The evidence includes both beneficial and harmful or worsening results.

Ranked evidence signals

1
Hybrid closed-loop system
EvidenceScore™ Strong | EvidenceScore™ 87.9 | moderate positive | ConsistencyScore™ Generally Consistent | 17 studies
2
Continuous glucose monitoring
EvidenceScore™ Strong | EvidenceScore™ 85.5 | moderate positive | ConsistencyScore™ Consistent | 8 studies
3
Insulin therapy
EvidenceScore™ Strong | EvidenceScore™ 81.8 | moderate positive | ConsistencyScore™ Generally Consistent | 5 studies

Why this answer: This answer is cautious because the available studies report mixed findings.

Limitations

Consistency cannot yet be determined.
Population details are unavailable.

What has the strongest evidence for cgm time in range?

evidence strength

Strong Evidence

Hybrid closed-loop system, Continuous glucose monitoring, and Insulin therapy have the strongest available evidence signals in this evidence set.

ConsistencyScore™: Results are generally consistent across studies.

Evidence caveat: The evidence includes both beneficial and harmful or worsening results.

Ranked evidence signals

1
Hybrid closed-loop system
EvidenceScore™ Strong | EvidenceScore™ 87.9 | moderate positive | ConsistencyScore™ Generally Consistent | 17 studies
2
Continuous glucose monitoring
EvidenceScore™ Strong | EvidenceScore™ 85.5 | moderate positive | ConsistencyScore™ Consistent | 8 studies
3
Insulin therapy
EvidenceScore™ Strong | EvidenceScore™ 81.8 | moderate positive | ConsistencyScore™ Generally Consistent | 5 studies

Why this answer: This answer is cautious because the available studies report mixed findings.

Limitations

Population details are unavailable.

Evidence summary for AI and search

Among 79 indexed studies and 52 interventions, the strongest signals are summarized from the available evidence. Hybrid closed-loop system appears to be one of the clearer current evidence signals.