Last updated September 9, 2026
Key finding
Baseline-adjusted mean time in range was 15% higher with rtCGM use versus SMBG use.
This study evaluated the effectiveness of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) compared to self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in adults with insulin-requiring type 2 diabetes, finding significant improvements in glucose control with rtCGM.
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
This study evaluated the effectiveness of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) compared to self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in adults with insulin-requiring type 2 diabetes, finding significant improvements in glucose control with rtCGM.
These findings are clinically significant as they suggest that real-time continuous glucose monitoring can enhance glucose control in adults with insulin-requiring type 2 diabetes, potentially leading to better health outcomes and reduced risk of diabetes-related complications. Improved monitoring may empower patients to manage their condition more effectively.
The study did not find significant differences in HbA1c levels between the two groups. The effectiveness of rtCGM may vary among different populations. Long-term impacts of rtCGM use were not assessed.
Published in
Publication details and source links for this paper.
Claire SL, Jonathan AW, Alisa B, et al. Use of Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Adults with Insulin-Requiring Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Diabetic Medicine. 2025;42(5):e70025. doi:10.1111/dme.70025
Time in target range increased by 15% with rtCGM compared to SMBG (p = 0.001).
Mean glucose decreased by 1.4 mmol/L with rtCGM (p = 0.001).
Percentage of time >10.0 mmol/L decreased by 14% with rtCGM (p = 0.001).
Evidence network
Understand where this research contributes within the broader evidence network.
This study contributes evidence to Continuous glucose monitoring and Extended hyperglycaemic event rate/week >13.9 mmol/L, Glucose management indicator (GMI), Glucose variability, and 7 more.
This study contributes evidence to
Primary intervention
Continuous glucose monitoring
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.
5
Related topics
10
Evidence pairs
1408
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 relationship
Save evidence
Core evidence
The primary outcomes reported in this study.
Continuous glucose monitoring → Extended hyperglycaemic event rate/week >13.9 mmol/L
Continuous glucose monitoring → Extended hyperglycaemic event rate/week >13.9 mmol/L
Continuous glucose monitoring → Glucose management indicator (GMI)
Continuous glucose monitoring → Glucose management indicator (GMI)
Continuous glucose monitoring → Glucose variability
Continuous glucose monitoring → Glucose variability
Continuous glucose monitoring → Percentage of time <3.0 mmol/L
Continuous glucose monitoring → Percentage of time <3.0 mmol/L
Continuous glucose monitoring → Percentage of time >13.9 mmol/L
Continuous glucose monitoring → Percentage of time >13.9 mmol/L
Continuous glucose monitoring → Percentage of time spent with sensor glucose levels <3.9 mmol/L
Continuous glucose monitoring → Percentage of time spent with sensor glucose levels <3.9 mmol/L
Continuous glucose monitoring → Pre-meal mean glucose
Continuous glucose monitoring → Pre-meal mean glucose
Continuous glucose monitoring → Standard deviation of glucose
Continuous glucose monitoring → Standard deviation of 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 HbA1c, 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 measuring HbA1c
Measures HbA1c 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.
12 results
13 results
12 results
12 results
13 results
Generated from the study's connected evidence using Evidence Intelligence™.
Insulin Delivery Systems appears to lower HbA1c.
ConsistencyScore™: Results are consistent across studies.
Ranked evidence signals
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.
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.
Insulin Delivery Systems may improve glucose variability.
ConsistencyScore™: Results are generally consistent across studies.
Ranked evidence signals
Glucose variability
EvidenceScore™ Emerging | EvidenceScore™ 59.0 | strong positive | ConsistencyScore™ Unclear | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is based on 8 supporting studies with generally consistent results and a positive effect signal.
Continuous glucose monitoring may improve percentage of time spent with sensor glucose levels <3.9 mmol/l.
ConsistencyScore™: Results are mixed and should be interpreted cautiously.
Ranked evidence signals
Percentage of time spent with sensor glucose levels <3.9 mmol/L
EvidenceScore™ Moderate | EvidenceScore™ 69.0 | weak positive | ConsistencyScore™ Mixed | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is cautious because the available studies report mixed findings.
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.
