Continuous Glucose Monitoring to Guide Lifestyle Choices With a Focus on Nutrition in the Management of Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Authors' conclusion
Findings from this systematic review and meta-analysis support the use of CGM as a tool to guide lifestyle choices with a focus on nutrition in the management of T2D, with significant benefits related to glycemia and body weight.
Study context
- Population
- Adults with T2D in randomized controlled trials (RCTs); PubMed and Cochrane CENTRAL searched from inception to June 6, 2025
- Participants
- 2,734 adults21 RCTs
- Comparison
- Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-guided lifestyle intervention vs comparator
- Outcome
- Glycemic and body weight outcomes
Methodological detailsrandom-effects meta-analysis, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) certainty of evidence
- Random-effects meta-analysis
- GRADE certainty of evidence
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
CGM vs ComparatorEstimate (95% CI)
Moderate certainty
MD (HbA1c) −0.46 %(−0.71 to −0.22)
Moderate certainty
MD (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) 7.18 %(2.77–11.58)
Moderate certainty
MD (TAR >180 mg/dL) −7.32 %(−12.98 to −1.66)
CGM vs ComparatorEstimate (95% CI)
Moderate certainty
MD (fasting glucose) −7.86 mg/dL(−15.06 to −0.65)
Low certainty
MD (mean CGM glucose) −11.57 mg/dL(−22.58 to −0.56)
Low certainty
MD (SD glucose) −4.06 mg/dL(−6.54 to −1.58)
CGM vs ComparatorMD (body weight), kg (95% CI)
Moderate certainty
−2.06(−3.74 to −0.38)
Original publication
Continuous Glucose Monitoring to Guide Lifestyle Choices With a Focus on Nutrition in the Management of Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Diabetes Sci Technol. Published 18 October 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →