Cited by 25Diabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes Management and EducationDiabetes Treatment and Management

Comparing the glycaemic outcomes between real‐time continuous glucose monitoring ( rt‐CGM ) and intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring ( isCGM ) among adults and children with type 1 diabetes: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials

Open access
Zhou, Yongwen, Sardana, Divesh, Kuroko, Sarahmarie, Haszard, Jillian J., de Block, Martin I., Weng, Jianping, Jefferies, Craig, Wheeler, Benjamin John·2024·Diabetic Medicine

Abstract

Aim: To conduct a systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effectiveness of real‐time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) versus intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) on key glycaemic metrics (co‐primary outcomes HbA1c and time‐in‐range [TIR] 70–180 mg/dL, 3.9–10.0 mmol/L) among people with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Methods: Medline, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of clinical trials were searched. Inclusion criteria were RCTs; T1D populations of any age and insulin regimen; comparing any type of rtCGM with isCGM (only the first generation had been compared to date); and reporting the glycaemic outcomes. Glycaemic outcomes were extracted post‐intervention and expressed as mean differences and 95% CIs between the two comparators. Results were pooled using a random‐effect meta‐analysis. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB2 tool. The quality of evidence was assessed by the GRADE approach. Results: Five RCTs met the inclusion criteria (4 parallel and 1 crossover design; 4 with CGM use <8 weeks), involving 446 participants (354 adults; 92 children and adolescents). Overall, meta‐analysis showed rtCGM compared to isCGM improved absolute TIR by +7.0% (95% CI: 5.8%–8.3%, I 2 = 0%, p < 0.01) accompanied by a favorable effect on time‐below‐range <70 mg/dL (3.9 mmol/L) – 1.7% (95%CI: −3.0% to −0.4%; p = 0.03). No differences were seen regarding HbA1c. Conclusions: This meta‐analysis highlights that for people with T1D, rtCGM confers benefits over isCGM primarily related to increased TIR, with improvements in hypo‐ and hyperglycaemia.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/dme.15280

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • RT-CGM outperforms isCGM in reducing HbA1c and minimizing hypoglycemic episodes.

    “as RT‐CGM outperforms isCGM in reducing HbA1c and minimizing hypoglycemic episodes [30]”

    From Effectiveness of Wearable Devices for Diabetes Management: An Overview of Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (2026) · cites this paper as [30]

    The Results summary (section 1) reports less time below the hypoglycaemia threshold with rt-CGM than with isCGM, but no difference in HbA1c. The Primary outcomes section (3.3) confirms that the pooled HbA1c difference was not statistically significant. The hypoglycaemia measure was time below range, not a count of episodes. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Some studies failed to justify sample size calculations, undermining result credibility.

    “Some studies failed to justify sample size calculations, further undermining result credibility [30, 31].”

    From Effectiveness of Wearable Devices for Diabetes Management: An Overview of Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (2026) · cites this paper as [30]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) says the small sample size of the available evidence may prevent reliable conclusions for some comparisons. It does not say that any included studies failed to justify their sample size calculations; searches for that point found no supporting passage. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. American Diabetes Association professional practice Committee.7. Diabetes technology: standards of medical Care in Diabetes-2022. Diabetes Care. 2021;45:S97-S112.
  2. Covidence systematic review software, Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia. www. covid ence. org

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhou, Y., Sardana, D., Kuroko, S., Haszard, J. J., de Block, M. I., Weng, J., Jefferies, C., & Wheeler, B. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Science and Technology of China (CN)
  • OU Health (US)
  • University of Otago (NZ)
  • Department of Paediatrics University of Otago Christchurch New Zealand
  • University of Auckland (NZ)
  • Health New Zealand (NZ)
Corresponding author
Wheeler, Benjamin John
Venue
Diabetic Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2024-01-10
Volume
41
Issue
3
Pages
e15280-e15280
ISSN
  • 0742-3071 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-5491
OpenAlex
W4390696862
Cited by
25
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 7
FWCI
1.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Diabetic Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • IUScholarWorks (Indiana University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
University of Otago
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
Keywords
type 1 diabetes, real-time continuous glucose monitoring, intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring, glycemic control, HbA1c, time in range, time below range, hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, children and adolescents, adults
MeSH terms
Continuous Glucose Monitoring, Adolescent, Adult, Blood Glucose, Child, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Hypoglycemic Agents, Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review