Continuous glucose monitoring in noninsulin‐treated type 2 diabetes: A critical review of reported trials with an updated systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomised controlled trials
Pooled result · HbA1cResult — go to the resultWeighted mean difference −0.37 % 95% CI −0.49 to −0.24Authors' conclusion
CGM use in noninsulin-treated individuals living with T2DM was associated with improved glycaemic outcomes and patient experience, reduced health care resource utilisation, and acceptable cost-effectiveness. These findings provide additional evidence to support CGM use among people living with T2DM who are not using insulin therapy.
Study context
- Population
- Individuals with noninsulin-treated T2D
- Participants
- 541 individuals8 RCTs
- Comparison
- Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) vs BGM/usual care
- CGMn = 297
- Outcome
- HbA1c
Methodological detailspredefined subgroups based on CGM type
- Predefined subgroups based on CGM type
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
Weighted mean difference
−0.37 %
95% CI −0.49 to −0.24
P < 0.00001
CGMvs BGM/usual care
weighted mean difference −0.37 % (95% CI −0.49 to −0.24); P < 0.00001
Further pooled results
| Outcome | Weighted mean difference (95% CI) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| % TIRI2 = 0% | 8.84 (4.62–13.06) | P < 0.0001 | |
| % TARI2 = 0% | −8.14 (−12.66 to −3.63) | P = 0.0004 | |
| −20−1001020Difference (linear scale) |
Subgroups by CGM type
- No significant subgroup differences
RCTs in mixed populations and observational studies
- Largely consistent benefit of CGM on glycaemic and nonglycaemic outcomes, with cost effectiveness and reduced healthcare resource utilisation
Original publication
Continuous glucose monitoring in noninsulin‐treated type 2 diabetes: A critical review of reported trials with an updated systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomised controlled trials. Diabetes Obes Metab. Published 4 August 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →