Last updated July 12, 2026
Key finding
Mean HbA1c significantly decreased from 90 mmol/mol (10.3%) to 79 mmol/mol (9.4%) at 6 months (Δ -12 mmol/mol, p < 0.001) in T1D users.
The study found that real-world use of Dexcom ONE CGM led to significant reductions in mean HbA1c levels after 6 months.
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
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
The study found that real-world use of Dexcom ONE CGM led to significant reductions in mean HbA1c levels after 6 months.
These findings are clinically significant as they suggest that the Dexcom ONE CGM can effectively help individuals with diabetes manage their blood sugar levels, potentially reducing the risk of diabetes-related complications. Improved health perception and reduced diabetes distress indicate enhanced overall well-being, which is crucial for long-term diabetes management.
Study design limited to observational cohort, which may introduce bias. Sample size and diversity not specified, affecting generalizability. No specific changes reported for time above range (TAR).
Published in
Publication details and source links for this paper.
Jackie E, Chloe H, Heydar K, et al. Real-world Dexcom ONE use was associated with clinically significant reductions in mean HbA1c after 6 months. Diabetic Medicine. 2025;42(4):e15519. doi:10.1111/dme.15519
Mean HbA1c decreased from 90 mmol/mol (10.3%) to 79 mmol/mol (9.4%) in T1D users (Δ -12 mmol/mol, p < 0.001).
Mean HbA1c decreased from 86 mmol/mol (10.1%) to 67 mmol/mol (8.3%) in T2D users.
T2D users exhibited a clinically meaningful increase in time in range (Δ +9.0%).
Both groups reported improved perception of health and reduced diabetes distress.
Evidence network
Understand where this research contributes within the broader evidence network.
This study contributes evidence to Continuous glucose monitoring and Change in perception of health, Diabetes distress scores, HbA1c, and 3 more.
This study contributes evidence to
Primary intervention
Continuous glucose monitoring
Primary outcomes
Primary intervention
Primary outcomes
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
6
Evidence pairs
578
Related studies
Evidence topic
Contributes evidence
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 relationship
Save evidence
Evidence topic
Save evidence
Core evidence
The primary outcomes reported in this study.
Continuous glucose monitoring → Change in perception of health
Continuous glucose monitoring → Change in perception of health
Continuous glucose monitoring → Diabetes distress scores
Continuous glucose monitoring → Diabetes distress scores
Continuous glucose monitoring → Time above range
Continuous glucose monitoring → Time above range
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 CGM Time in Range, Insulin Delivery Systems and HbA1c.
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 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.
Latest published studies
Published within the last 2 years.
Jump to pre-filtered views in Evidence Explorer.
6 results
7 results
6 results
6 results
7 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
Time above range
EvidenceScore™ Strong | EvidenceScore™ 78.6 | weak negative | ConsistencyScore™ Mixed | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is based on 17 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™ 83.3 | strong positive | ConsistencyScore™ Consistent | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is based on 13 supporting studies with consistent results and a positive effect signal.
Limitations
Continuous glucose monitoring appears to improve Change in perception of health.
ConsistencyScore™: Consistency cannot yet be determined from the available evidence.
Ranked evidence signals
Change in perception of health
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 Continuous glucose monitoring for Diabetes distress scores.
ConsistencyScore™: Consistency cannot yet be determined from the available evidence.
Ranked evidence signals
Diabetes distress scores
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.
