Evidence Intelligence™
- EvidenceScore™
- 85
- Strong
- ImpactScore™
- 83
- Positive
- ConsistencyScore™
- 83
- consistent
Supporting studies: Based on 12 studies
Add to Evidence TrackerResearch Summary
Analyzed using Evidence Intelligence™
CGM Improves Glycemic Management in Type 2 Diabetes
Last updated September 9, 2026
Key finding
Adjusted difference, -0.6% (95% CI -0.9% to -0.3%); p<0.001
This study compared continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) to blood glucose monitoring (BGM) in adults with type 2 diabetes, finding significant improvements in HbA1c and time in range with CGM.
Quick read
Study at a glance
The essential study design details in one scan.
EvidenceScore™
Moderate
Study type
RCTs
Follow-up
Medium-Term (3–12 mo)
Risk of bias
High Risk
Save research, organize studies, and quickly find important evidence again.
Plain-language summary
What this paper says
A plain-language read of the study’s main message and where it applies.
Study focus
This study compared continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) to blood glucose monitoring (BGM) in adults with type 2 diabetes, finding significant improvements in HbA1c and time in range with CGM.
Clinical relevance
The findings highlight the potential of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) to improve diabetes management by providing real-time data, which may lead to better glycemic control and fewer complications. This can enhance patient outcomes and reduce the risk of diabetes-related health issues.
Keep in mind
The study's sample size and demographic diversity may limit generalizability. Potential biases in self-reported data could affect outcome accuracy. Long-term effects of CGM versus BGM were not assessed.
Published in
Journal Reference
Publication details and source links for this paper.
Thomas WM, Roy WB, Corbin G, et al. Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Compared with Blood Glucose Monitoring in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes. BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care. 2025;13(6):e005469. doi:10.1136/bmjdrc-2025-005469
Main Effects
CGM group showed a decrease in HbA1c from 9.1% to 8.0% (p=0.001).
BGM group showed a decrease in HbA1c from 9.0% to 8.5% (p=0.001).
Mean time in range (70-180 mg/dL) increased by 9.3% in the CGM group (p=0.001).
Mean weekly hypoglycemic event rate decreased by 0.2 events in the CGM group (p=0.001).
Evidence network
How this study fits
Understand where this research contributes within the broader evidence network.
Evidence Context
This study contributes evidence to Continuous glucose monitoring and HbA1c, Time >250 mg/dL, Time in range, and 1 more.
This study contributes evidence to
Primary intervention
Continuous glucose monitoring
Primary outcomes
- HbA1c
- Time >250 mg/dL
- Time in range
Primary intervention
Primary outcomes
Evidence relationships
Intervention and outcome relationships this study adds to the evidence network.
4
Evidence pairs
4
Relationships
4
Evidence topics
contributes_evidence
Editorial context
Why this study matters
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.
Moderate contributionModerate confidenceNetwork score: 72
4
Related topics
4
Evidence pairs
1369
Related studies
High relevance in at least one topic
Why it is useful
- Contributes to 4 evidence relationships
- Includes primary outcome data
- Linked to 4 direct semantic evidence topics
Topic contributions
Evidence topic
Contributes evidence
Evidence topic
Contributes evidence
Evidence topic
Contributes evidence
Evidence topic
Contributes evidence
Add related evidence to your Evidence Tracker
Save studies and evidence pages, organize your personal Evidence Tracker, and keep the research you care about in one place.
Primary evidence
Evidence relationship
Insulin Delivery Systems and HbA1c
Related evidence
Evidence relationship
Insulin Delivery Systems and CGM Time in Range
Save evidence
Evidence topic
Diabetes Technology
Save evidence
Core evidence
Study findings
The primary outcomes reported in this study.
Time >250 mg/dL
Continuous glucose monitoring → Time >250 mg/dL
Continuous glucose monitoring → Time >250 mg/dL
Evidence Intelligence™
- EvidenceScore™
- Emerging
- Score 59 · Based on 1 study
- ImpactScore™
- 100
- Very Positive
- ConsistencyScore™
- unclear
- Not enough independent studies
Supporting studies: Based on 1 study
Add to Evidence TrackerTime in range
Continuous glucose monitoring → Time in range
Continuous glucose monitoring → Time in range
Evidence Intelligence™
- EvidenceScore™
- 85
- Strong
- ImpactScore™
- 77
- Positive
- ConsistencyScore™
- 62
- generally_consistent
Supporting studies: Based on 13 studies
Add to Evidence TrackerWeekly hypoglycemic event rate
Continuous glucose monitoring → Weekly hypoglycemic event rate
Continuous glucose monitoring → Weekly hypoglycemic event rate
Evidence Intelligence™
- EvidenceScore™
- Emerging
- Score 59 · Based on 1 study
- ImpactScore™
- 100
- Very Positive
- ConsistencyScore™
- unclear
- Not enough independent studies
Supporting studies: Based on 1 study
Add to Evidence TrackerEvidence Library
Build your evidence library
Save research, organize studies, and quickly find important evidence again.
Evidence Suggest
- CGM reduced HbA1c by 0.6% compared to BGM (p=0.001).
- CGM increased time in the target range by 9.3% (p=0.001).
- CGM decreased hypoglycemic events by 0.2 events/week (p=0.001).
Who this applies to
- Adults diagnosed with type 2 diabetes.
- Individuals seeking improved blood glucose management.
Keep in Mind
- Results may not apply to populations outside the study's demographics.
- The study did not evaluate the long-term sustainability of CGM benefits.
- Further research is needed to confirm findings across diverse populations.
Between the Lines
- The study's sample size and demographic diversity may limit generalizability.
- Potential biases in self-reported data could affect outcome accuracy.
- Long-term effects of CGM versus BGM were not assessed.
Evidence Library
Build your evidence library
Save research, organize studies, and quickly find important evidence again.
Connected Evidence
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.
Related evidence relationships
Explore in Evidence ExplorerThis study contributes to the evidence on the following intervention-outcome relationships.
Devices & Technology
Insulin Delivery Systems → HbA1c
Devices & Technology
Evidence Intelligence™
- EvidenceScore™
- 85
- Strong
- ImpactScore™
- 83
- Positive
- ConsistencyScore™
- 83
- consistent
Supporting studies: Based on 12 studies
View evidenceDevices & Technology
Insulin Delivery Systems → CGM Time in Range
Devices & Technology
Evidence Intelligence™
- EvidenceScore™
- 85
- Strong
- ImpactScore™
- 77
- Positive
- ConsistencyScore™
- 62
- generally_consistent
Supporting studies: Based on 13 studies
View evidenceIncluded in these evidence collections
Curated evidence collections and hubs this study is part of.
CGM Time in Range Evidence Hub
All studies measuring CGM Time in Range
13 studies
outcome_hubMeasures CGM Time in Range as a key outcome.
HbA1c Evidence Hub
All studies measuring HbA1c
12 studies
outcome_hubMeasures HbA1c as a key outcome.
Insulin Delivery Systems Evidence Hub
All studies on Insulin Delivery Systems
12 studies
intervention_hubContributes to Insulin Delivery Systems evidence base.
Recent Diabetes Research
Latest published studies
recency_collection
Published within the last 2 years.
Explore more in Evidence Explorer
Jump to pre-filtered views in Evidence Explorer.
All studies on Continuous glucose monitoring and HbA1c
Intervention: Continuous glucose monitoringOutcome: HbA1c
12 results
All studies on Continuous glucose monitoring and Time in range
Intervention: Continuous glucose monitoringOutcome: Time in range
13 results
All studies on Continuous glucose monitoring
Intervention: Continuous glucose monitoring
12 results
All studies measuring HbA1c
Outcome: HbA1c
12 results
All studies measuring Time in range
Outcome: Time in range
13 results
Questions answered by this study
Generated from the study's connected evidence using Evidence Intelligence™.
Does Insulin Delivery Systems lower HbA1c?
Strong Evidence
Insulin Delivery Systems appears to lower HbA1c.
ConsistencyScore™: Results are consistent across studies.
Ranked evidence signals
- 1
HbA1c
EvidenceScore™ Strong | EvidenceScore™ 85.5 | moderate positive | ConsistencyScore™ Consistent | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is based on 20 supporting studies with consistent results and a positive effect signal.
Does Insulin Delivery Systems improve CGM Time in Range?
Strong Evidence
Insulin Delivery Systems may improve CGM Time in Range.
ConsistencyScore™: Results are mixed and should be interpreted cautiously.
Evidence caveat: The available evidence reports mixed findings.
Ranked evidence signals
- 1
Time in range
EvidenceScore™ Strong | EvidenceScore™ 85.2 | moderate positive | ConsistencyScore™ Generally Consistent | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is cautious because the available studies report mixed findings.
Does Continuous glucose monitoring improve time >250 mg/dl?
Emerging Evidence
Continuous glucose monitoring appears to improve time >250 mg/dl.
ConsistencyScore™: Consistency cannot yet be determined from the available evidence.
Ranked evidence signals
- 1
Time >250 mg/dL
EvidenceScore™ Emerging | EvidenceScore™ 59.0 | strong positive | ConsistencyScore™ Unclear | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is based on a single supporting study.
Limitations
- Only one supporting study is available.
Does Continuous glucose monitoring affect weekly hypoglycemic event rate?
Emerging Evidence
Continuous glucose monitoring appears to affect weekly hypoglycemic event rate.
ConsistencyScore™: Consistency cannot yet be determined from the available evidence.
Ranked evidence signals
- 1
Weekly hypoglycemic event rate
EvidenceScore™ Emerging | EvidenceScore™ 59.0 | strong positive | ConsistencyScore™ Unclear | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is based on a single supporting study.
Limitations
- Only one supporting study is available.
Next steps
Continue your research
Choose a next path through related evidence topics, Evidence Explorer views, and research summaries.
Evidence topics
Follow the topics this study contributes to.
Explore in Evidence Explorer
Open broader Evidence Explorer views for this relationship.
Related research
Read related research summaries.
No ads. No tracking.
Focused on evidence, not advertising.
Secure & private
Your data is always protected.
Always up to date
New studies added every day.