Last updated September 9, 2026
Key finding
The mean glucose levels changed from 7.03 mmol/l to 6.73 mmol/l in the intervention group, resulting in a significant glucose difference of −0.66 mmol/l.
This study evaluated the impact of intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) on glycemic control and fear of hypoglycemia in adults with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes.
Quick read
The essential study design details in one scan.
EvidenceScore™
Moderate
Study type
RCTs
Follow-up
Extended (5–20+ y)
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 the impact of intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) on glycemic control and fear of hypoglycemia in adults with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes.
Effective glycemic control is crucial for individuals with type 1 diabetes to prevent complications. The significant reduction in mean glucose levels with isCGM indicates its potential as a valuable tool for managing diabetes. However, the lack of impact on fear of hypoglycemia highlights the need for additional strategies to address psychological aspects of diabetes management.
The study did not demonstrate significant changes in fear of hypoglycemia. The sample size and demographic details were not specified. The clinical significance of the findings may vary among individuals.
Published in
Publication details and source links for this paper.
Jerzy H, Agata G, Marta W, et al. Impact of Initiating Intermittently Scanned Continuous Glucose Monitoring on Glycemic Control and Fear of Hypoglycemia in Adults with Newly Diagnosed Type 1 Diabetes. Frontiers in Endocrinology. 2025;15:1503891. doi:10.3389/fendo.2024.1503891
Mean glucose levels decreased significantly by -0.66 mmol/l (p=0.041) in the intervention group.
Time below 70 mg/dl changed insignificantly from 2.42% to 2.25% in the intervention group.
Fear of hypoglycemia showed no significant change between groups after 4 weeks.
Evidence network
Understand where this research contributes within the broader evidence network.
This study contributes evidence to Continuous glucose monitoring and Fear of hypoglycemia (worry), Percentage of time spent below 70 mg/dL, Pre-meal mean glucose, and 1 more.
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
4
Evidence pairs
825
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 → Fear of hypoglycemia (worry)
Continuous glucose monitoring → Fear of hypoglycemia (worry)
Continuous glucose monitoring → Percentage of time spent below 70 mg/dL
Continuous glucose monitoring → Percentage of time spent below 70 mg/dL
Continuous glucose monitoring → Pre-meal mean glucose
Continuous glucose monitoring → Pre-meal mean glucose
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 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 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.
13 results
4 results
13 results
13 results
4 results
Generated from the study's connected evidence using Evidence Intelligence™.
Insulin Delivery Systems may improve CGM Time in Range.
ConsistencyScore™: Results are mixed and should be interpreted cautiously.
Ranked evidence signals
Time in range
EvidenceScore™ Strong | EvidenceScore™ 85.2 | moderate positive | ConsistencyScore™ Generally Consistent | 1 study
Pre-meal mean glucose
EvidenceScore™ Strong | EvidenceScore™ 78.8 | moderate positive | ConsistencyScore™ Mixed | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is cautious because the available studies report mixed findings.
Current evidence does not show a clear effect of Continuous glucose monitoring on fear of hypoglycemia (WORRY).
ConsistencyScore™: Consistency cannot yet be determined from the available evidence.
Ranked evidence signals
Fear of hypoglycemia (worry)
EvidenceScore™ Emerging | EvidenceScore™ 59.0 | neutral | 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 percentage of time spent below 70 mg/dl.
ConsistencyScore™: Consistency cannot yet be determined from the available evidence.
Ranked evidence signals
Percentage of time spent below 70 mg/dL
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.
