Última actualización 8 de julio de 2026
Key finding
TIR increased significantly in the intervention group with a significant difference between study groups (p = 0.010).
This study evaluated the impact of remote insulin dose adjustment using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) on glucose control in nursing home residents with type 2 diabetes (T2D). The intervention group showed significant improvements in glucose metrics compared to standard care.
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 impact of remote insulin dose adjustment using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) on glucose control in nursing home residents with type 2 diabetes (T2D). The intervention group showed significant improvements in glucose metrics compared to standard care.
This study highlights the potential of telemedicine and continuous glucose monitoring to enhance diabetes management in nursing home settings. Improved glucose control can lead to better health outcomes and reduced complications for elderly patients with diabetes, emphasizing the need for innovative approaches in chronic disease management.
Limited generalizability due to specific population (nursing home residents). Potential biases in self-reported data. Short duration of the study may not capture long-term effects.
Published in
Publication details and source links for this paper.
Ilaria D, Chiara DP, Gloria GDV, et al. Remote insulin dose adjustment based on interstitial glucose monitoring ameliorates glucose control in nursing home residents with T2D on basal‐bolus insulin therapy. Diabetes, Obesity & Metabolism. 2026;28(4):3202-3208. doi:10.1111/dom.70511
TIR increased by 10.3% in the intervention group (p = 0.010).
TBR decreased by 3.1% in the intervention group (p = 0.007).
HbA1c decreased by 9 mmol/mol in the intervention group (p = 0.028).
Mean daily insulin units decreased by 3 IU/day in the intervention group (p = 0.002).
Evidence network
Understand where this research contributes within the broader evidence network.
This study contributes evidence to Continuous glucose monitoring and Change in mean daily insulin units from baseline, HbA1c, Time below range, and 1 more.
This study contributes evidence to
Primary intervention
Continuous glucose monitoring
Primary outcomes
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.
4
Related topics
4
Evidence pairs
966
Related studies
Evidence topic
Contributes evidence
Evidence topic
Contributes evidence
Evidence topic
Contributes evidence
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
Relación de evidencia
Evidencia relacionada
Relación de evidencia
Guardar evidencia
Tema de evidencia
Guardar evidencia
Core evidence
The primary outcomes reported in this study.
Continuous glucose monitoring → Change in mean daily insulin units from baseline
Continuous glucose monitoring → Change in mean daily insulin units from baseline
Continuous glucose monitoring → Time below range
Continuous glucose monitoring → Time below range
Continuous glucose monitoring → Time in range
Continuous 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 Insulin Delivery Systems and HbA1c, Insulin Delivery Systems and CGM Time in Range.
This study contributes to the evidence on the following intervention-outcome relationships.
Devices & Technology
Devices & Technology
Curated evidence collections and hubs this study is part of.
All studies measuring HbA1c
Measures HbA1c as a key outcome.
All studies on Insulin Delivery Systems
Contributes to Insulin Delivery Systems evidence base.
All studies measuring CGM Time in Range
Measures CGM Time in Range as a key outcome.
Latest published studies
Published within the last 2 years.
Jump to pre-filtered views in Evidence Explorer.
8 results
6 results
8 results
8 results
6 results
Generated from the study's connected evidence using Evidence Intelligence™.
Insulin Delivery Systems may improve CGM Time in Range.
ConsistencyScore™: Results are generally consistent across studies.
Ranked evidence signals
Time in range
EvidenceScore™ Strong | EvidenceScore™ 83.4 | moderate positive | ConsistencyScore™ Consistent | 1 study
Time below range
EvidenceScore™ Strong | EvidenceScore™ 79.0 | weak positive | ConsistencyScore™ Generally Consistent | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is based on 20 supporting studies with generally consistent results and a positive effect signal.
Limitations
Insulin Delivery Systems appears to improve HbA1c.
ConsistencyScore™: Results are consistent across studies.
Ranked evidence signals
HbA1c
EvidenceScore™ Strong | EvidenceScore™ 85.5 | strong positive | ConsistencyScore™ Consistent | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is based on 14 supporting studies with consistent results and a positive effect signal.
Limitations
Continuous glucose monitoring appears to improve Change in mean daily insulin units from baseline.
ConsistencyScore™: Consistency cannot yet be determined from the available evidence.
Ranked evidence signals
Change in mean daily insulin units from baseline
EvidenceScore™ Emerging | EvidenceScore™ 59.0 | strong positive | 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.
Follow the topics this study contributes to.
Open broader Evidence Explorer views for this relationship.
Read related research summaries.
Centrada en la evidencia, no en la publicidad.
Tus datos siempre están protegidos.
Se agregan nuevos estudios todos los días.
