Scheduled Remote Review of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Data with Targeted Intervention versus Standard Care in Children with Type 1 Diabetes: A Parallel-Groups Study
Primary result · Change in TIRResult — go to the resultβ 3.1 percentage pointAuthors' conclusion
Regular CGM review identified many participants not meeting CGM targets, and over half received targeted intervention. However, the intervention did not significantly improve TIR or person-reported outcomes.
Study context
- Population
- Children aged 5–14 years with T1D using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), two metropolitan clinics at Perth Children's Hospital, Western Australia; most used AID (64% control, 72% intervention)
- Participants
- 113 children
- Comparison
- Scheduled remote CGM review with targeted intervention vs standard care
- Interventionn = 60
- Controln = 53reference
- Primary endpoint
- Change in TIR (3.9-10.0 mmol/L), difference-in-difference analysis
- Follow-up
- Baseline to 6 months
Methodological detailsparallel-groups, clinic-level allocation, two metropolitan clinics
- Parallel-groups
- Clinic-level allocation
- Two metropolitan clinics
Primary result
Change in TIR
β
3.1 percentage point
P = 0.11
As reported in the abstract
- Mean TIR decreased in Control over 6 months
- 69.4%-66.6%
- Mean TIR unchanged in Intervention over 6 months
- 66.9%-67.0%
Further findings
Baseline TIR
- Intervention delivery per 14-day period
- 71% (95% CI 67, 75) · Identified for targeted support · Received remote advice 39% (95% CI 30, 49) · Positive feedback sent 38% (95% CI 32, 43)
Person-reported outcomes (T1DAL, DTSQ)
- No significant between-group differences in T1DAL or DTSQ scores
- Limited by low end-of-intervention questionnaire response rates
Original publication
Scheduled Remote Review of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Data with Targeted Intervention versus Standard Care in Children with Type 1 Diabetes: A Parallel-Groups Study. Horm Res Paediatr. Published 12 September 2026. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →