Last updated September 9, 2026
Key finding
Mean difference of 10.0 (95% CI, 2.7 to 17.4) in percentage TIR between isCGM + DSME and DSME alone (P = .01)
This post hoc analysis of the IMMEDIATE study evaluated the impact of intermittent subcutaneous continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) combined with diabetes self-management education (DSME) on time in range (TIR) for participants with type 2 diabetes (T2D) aged under and over 65 years.
Quick read
The essential study design details in one scan.
EvidenceScore™
Moderate
Study type
RCTs
Follow-up
Extended (5–20+ y)
Risk of bias
High Risk
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 post hoc analysis of the IMMEDIATE study evaluated the impact of intermittent subcutaneous continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) combined with diabetes self-management education (DSME) on time in range (TIR) for participants with type 2 diabetes (T2D) aged under and over 65 years.
These findings are significant as they suggest that integrating isCGM with diabetes self-management education can enhance glycemic control in individuals with T2D, particularly for those under 65. Improved time in range can lead to better long-term health outcomes, reducing the risk of diabetes-related complications.
The analysis is post hoc and may have inherent biases. The sample size and characteristics may limit generalizability. No significant treatment effects were observed for older participants.
Published in
Publication details and source links for this paper.
Caity D, Annis M, Samiollah G, Joan S, Matthew PG. Abstract Introduction In a post hoc analysis of data from the IMMEDIATE study, we compared mean percentage time in range (TIR) in study participants with T2D aged <65 and ≥65 years who were randomized to intermittent subcutaneous continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) plus diabetes self-management education (DSME) vs DSME alone. Journal of the Endocrine Society. 2026;10(3):bvag004. doi:10.1210/jendso/bvag004
The isCGM + DSME group had a mean increase of 10% in percentage time in range (TIR) compared to DSME alone (P = .01).
The glucose measurement satisfaction survey score improved by 0.57 in the isCGM + DSME group (P = .03).
No significant differences were found in mean HbA1c or time below/above range between the groups.
Evidence network
Understand where this research contributes within the broader evidence network.
This study contributes evidence to DSMES and Glucose Measurement Satisfaction Survey score, HbA1c, Time in range.
This study contributes evidence to
Primary intervention
DSMES
Primary outcomes
Evidence topics
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
3
Evidence pairs
1230
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.
DSMES → Glucose Measurement Satisfaction Survey score
DSMES → Glucose Measurement Satisfaction Survey score
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 Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support (DSMES) Programs and HbA1c, Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support (DSMES) Programs and CGM Time in Range.
This study contributes to the evidence on the following intervention-outcome relationships.
Behavioral & Lifestyle
Behavioral & Lifestyle
Curated evidence collections and hubs this study is part of.
All studies on Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support (DSMES) Programs
Contributes to Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support (DSMES) Programs evidence base.
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.
Latest published studies
Published within the last 2 years.
Jump to pre-filtered views in Evidence Explorer.
12 results
3 results
12 results
12 results
3 results
Generated from the study's connected evidence using Evidence Intelligence™.
Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support (DSMES) Programs may lower HbA1c.
ConsistencyScore™: Results are generally consistent across studies.
Ranked evidence signals
HbA1c
EvidenceScore™ Strong | EvidenceScore™ 85.7 | moderate positive | ConsistencyScore™ Generally Consistent | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is based on 44 supporting studies with generally consistent results and a positive effect signal.
Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support (DSMES) Programs appear to improve CGM Time in Range.
ConsistencyScore™: Results are mixed and should be interpreted cautiously.
Ranked evidence signals
Time in range
EvidenceScore™ Strong | EvidenceScore™ 77.9 | strong positive | ConsistencyScore™ Mixed | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is cautious because the available studies report mixed findings.
DSMES appears to improve glucose measurement satisfaction survey score.
ConsistencyScore™: Consistency cannot yet be determined from the available evidence.
Ranked evidence signals
Glucose Measurement Satisfaction Survey score
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.
Focused on evidence, not advertising.
Your data is always protected.
New studies added every day.
