Última actualización 12 de julio de 2026
Key finding
TBR70 reduced from 10.7 ± 11.3% at baseline to 2.8 ± 2.8% and 2.1 ± 2.4% at 12 and 24 weeks, respectively (p < 0.01 for both 12 and 24 weeks).
This study evaluated the outcomes of intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM 2.0) in children with type 1 diabetes, showing significant reductions in time below range.
Quick read
The essential study design details in one scan.
EvidenceScore™
Moderate
Study type
RCTs
Follow-up
Medium-Term (3–12 mo)
Risk of bias
Some Concerns
Guarda investigacion, organiza estudios y vuelve a encontrar evidencia importante rapidamente.
Plain-language summary
A plain-language read of the study’s main message and where it applies.
Study focus
This study evaluated the outcomes of intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM 2.0) in children with type 1 diabetes, showing significant reductions in time below range.
These findings are important as they suggest that isCGM 2.0 can help reduce episodes of hypoglycemia in children with type 1 diabetes, potentially improving their safety and quality of life. However, the lack of significant change in HbA1c indicates that further research may be needed to understand its impact on overall diabetes management.
Limited generalizability due to specific population studied Non-significant findings for HbA1c may limit clinical relevance Short follow-up period may not capture long-term effects
Published in
Publication details and source links for this paper.
Yongwen Z, Benjamin JW, Alisa B, et al. Extension phase outcomes with intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM 2.0) in children with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Diabetic Medicine. 2024;42(5):e15494. doi:10.1111/dme.15494
TBR70 reduced from 10.7% at baseline to 2.8% at 12 weeks (p < 0.01)
Glucose test frequency increased from 4.7 tests/day at baseline to 10.7 tests/day at 12 weeks (p < 0.01)
HbA1c and time in range were non-significant at 24 weeks in both groups
Evidence network
Understand where this research contributes within the broader evidence network.
This study contributes evidence to Standard care with capillary blood glucose monitoring, isCGM 2.0 and Increase in glucose test frequency from baseline to 12 and 24 weeks, Time in range.
This study contributes evidence to
Primary intervention
Standard care with capillary blood glucose monitoring
Primary outcomes
Evidence topics
Primary intervention
Intervention and outcome relationships this study adds to the evidence network.
Editorial context
See why this paper is useful beyond its individual results.
Evidence network role
This section describes how the study fits into the current evidence network. It does not determine whether an intervention works on its own.
1
Related topics
4
Evidence pairs
171
Related studies
Evidence topic
Contributes evidence
Guarda estudios y paginas de evidencia, organiza tu Evidence Tracker y manten en un solo lugar la investigacion que te importa.
Evidencia principal
Tema de evidencia
matched_outcome
Core evidence
The primary outcomes reported in this study.
isCGM 2.0 → Increase in glucose test frequency from baseline to 12 and 24 weeks
isCGM 2.0 → Increase in glucose test frequency from baseline to 12 and 24 weeks
Standard care with capillary blood glucose monitoring → Increase in glucose test frequency from baseline to 12 and 24 weeks
Standard care with capillary blood glucose monitoring → Increase in glucose test frequency from baseline to 12 and 24 weeks
Standard care with capillary blood glucose monitoring → Time in range
Standard care with capillary blood glucose monitoring → Time in range
Evidence Library
Save research, organize studies, and quickly find important evidence again.
Evidence Library
Save research, organize studies, and quickly find important evidence again.
Explore related studies, evidence collections, and research questions.
Relationships organized using the Dediabetes Evidence Intelligence™ framework.
This study contributes to evidence on Standard care with capillary blood glucose monitoring and CGM Time in Range, isCGM 2.0 and Increase in glucose test frequency from baseline to 12 and 24 weeks.
This study contributes to the evidence on the following intervention-outcome relationships.
Devices & Technology
Curated evidence collections and hubs this study is part of.
All studies measuring CGM Time in Range
Measures CGM Time in Range as a key outcome.
All studies on Standard care with capillary blood glucose monitoring
Contributes to Standard care with capillary blood glucose monitoring evidence base.
All studies measuring Increase in glucose test frequency from baseline to 12 and 24 weeks
Measures Increase in glucose test frequency from baseline to 12 and 24 weeks as a key outcome.
All studies on isCGM 2.0
Contributes to isCGM 2.0 evidence base.
Latest published studies
Published within the last 2 years.
Jump to pre-filtered views in Evidence Explorer.
2 results
1 results
2 results
1 results
2 results
Generated from the study's connected evidence using Evidence Intelligence™.
Current evidence does not show a clear benefit of Standard care with capillary blood glucose monitoring for Time in range.
ConsistencyScore™: Results are consistent across studies.
Ranked evidence signals
Time in range
EvidenceScore™ Moderate | EvidenceScore™ 69.0 | neutral | ConsistencyScore™ Consistent | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is based on a single supporting study.
Limitations
isCGM 2.0 appears to improve Increase in glucose test frequency from baseline to 12 and 24 weeks.
ConsistencyScore™: Consistency cannot yet be determined from the available evidence.
Ranked evidence signals
Increase in glucose test frequency from baseline to 12 and 24 weeks
EvidenceScore™ Emerging | EvidenceScore™ 59.0 | strong positive | ConsistencyScore™ Unclear | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is based on a single supporting study.
Limitations
Current evidence does not show a clear benefit of Standard care with capillary blood glucose monitoring for Increase in glucose test frequency from baseline to 12 and 24 weeks.
ConsistencyScore™: Consistency cannot yet be determined from the available evidence.
Ranked evidence signals
Increase in glucose test frequency from baseline to 12 and 24 weeks
EvidenceScore™ Emerging | EvidenceScore™ 59.0 | neutral | ConsistencyScore™ Unclear | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is based on a single supporting study.
Limitations
isCGM 2.0 may worsen Time in range or be associated with harm.
ConsistencyScore™: Consistency cannot yet be determined from the available evidence.
Ranked evidence signals
Time in range
EvidenceScore™ Emerging | EvidenceScore™ 59.0 | moderate negative | ConsistencyScore™ Unclear | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is based on a single supporting study.
Limitations
Next steps
Choose a next path through related evidence topics, Evidence Explorer views, and research summaries.
Open broader Evidence Explorer views for this relationship.
Read related research summaries.
Focused on evidence, not advertising.
Your data is always protected.
New studies added every day.
