Last updated September 11, 2026
Key finding
TIR improved progressively to nearly 90% in the CGM arm by discharge, compared to 60% in the POC arm.
This study evaluated continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) versus point-of-care testing (POC) in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes, finding that CGM significantly improved time in range.
Quick read
The essential study design details in one scan.
EvidenceScore™
Moderate
Study type
RCTs
Follow-up
Short-Term (≤3 mo)
Risk of bias
Some Concerns
Save research, organize studies, and quickly find important evidence again.
Plain-language summary
A plain-language read of the study’s main message and where it applies.
Study focus
This study evaluated continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) versus point-of-care testing (POC) in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes, finding that CGM significantly improved time in range.
Improving glycemic control in hospitalized patients is crucial for reducing complications and enhancing recovery. The findings suggest that continuous glucose monitoring can be a more effective tool for managing blood sugar levels in this population, potentially leading to better patient outcomes and reduced healthcare costs.
The study may have limited generalizability due to its specific hospital setting. Sample size and demographic diversity were not detailed, potentially affecting applicability. Effectiveness data for some outcomes were reported as unclear.
Published in
Publication details and source links for this paper.
Mikkel TO, Signe HJ, Louise MR, et al. Continuous Glucose Monitoring Improves Time in Range Compared to Point-of-Care Testing in Hospitalized Patients with Type 2 Diabetes. Journal of the Endocrine Society. 2025;9(10):bvaf137. doi:10.1210/jendso/bvaf137
CGM improved time in range to nearly 90% by discharge, compared to 60% for POC (30% increase, p=0.001).
Correctional insulin doses were reduced by 0.7 IU in the CGM arm compared to POC (p=0.016).
Prandial insulin doses were lower during evening shifts in the CGM group, showing a decrease of 1.1 IU (p=0.021).
Evidence network
Understand where this research contributes within the broader evidence network.
This study contributes evidence to Continuous glucose monitoring, Point-of-care glucose testing (POC) and Change in prandial insulin requirement per kg, Correctional insulin doses, Time in range.
This study contributes evidence to
Primary intervention
Continuous 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.
3
Related topics
6
Evidence pairs
898
Related studies
Evidence topic
Contributes evidence
Evidence topic
Contributes evidence
Evidence topic
Contributes evidence
Save studies and evidence pages, organize your personal Evidence Tracker, and keep the research you care about in one place.
Primary evidence
Evidence relationship
Related evidence
Evidence topic
Save evidence
Evidence topic
Save evidence
Core evidence
The primary outcomes reported in this study.
Continuous glucose monitoring → Change in prandial insulin requirement per kg
Continuous glucose monitoring → Change in prandial insulin requirement per kg
Continuous glucose monitoring → Correctional insulin doses
Continuous glucose monitoring → Correctional insulin doses
Continuous glucose monitoring → Time in range
Continuous glucose monitoring → Time in range
Point-of-care glucose testing (POC) → Change in prandial insulin requirement per kg
Point-of-care glucose testing (POC) → Change in prandial insulin requirement per kg
Point-of-care glucose testing (POC) → Correctional insulin doses
Point-of-care glucose testing (POC) → Correctional insulin doses
Point-of-care glucose testing (POC) → Time in range
Point-of-care glucose testing (POC) → 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 CGM Time in Range, Insulin Delivery Systems and Correctional insulin doses.
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 CGM Time in Range
Measures CGM Time in Range as a key outcome.
All studies on Insulin Delivery Systems
Contributes to Insulin Delivery Systems evidence base.
All studies measuring Correctional insulin doses
Measures Correctional insulin doses as a key outcome.
Latest published studies
Published within the last 2 years.
Jump to pre-filtered views in Evidence Explorer.
16 results
1 results
16 results
16 results
1 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™ 87.6 | moderate positive | ConsistencyScore™ Generally Consistent | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is based on 38 supporting studies with generally consistent results and a positive effect signal.
Continuous glucose monitoring appears to improve change in prandial insulin requirement per kg.
ConsistencyScore™: Consistency cannot yet be determined from the available evidence.
Ranked evidence signals
Change in prandial insulin requirement per kg
EvidenceScore™ Emerging | EvidenceScore™ 59.0 | strong positive | ConsistencyScore™ Unclear | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is based on a single supporting study.
Limitations
Continuous glucose monitoring appears to improve correctional insulin doses.
ConsistencyScore™: Consistency cannot yet be determined from the available evidence.
Ranked evidence signals
Correctional insulin doses
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 Point-of-care glucose testing (POC) for change in prandial insulin requirement per kg.
ConsistencyScore™: Consistency cannot yet be determined from the available evidence.
Ranked evidence signals
Change in prandial insulin requirement per kg
EvidenceScore™ Emerging | EvidenceScore™ 59.0 | neutral | 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.
Focused on evidence, not advertising.
Your data is always protected.
New studies added every day.
