Effectiveness of Continuous Glucose Monitoring on Metrics of Glycemic Control in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Abstract
Purpose: To provide a systematic review and meta-analysis synthesizing the findings of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) in the management of adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) on glucose control and clinical outcomes. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane were searched for RCTs that assessed the effectiveness of real-time CGM (rt-CGM) or flash CGM (FGM) in adults (≥18 years) with T2DM that reported on at least 1 of the following outcomes: hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), time in range, time in hyperglycemia, or time in hypoglycemia. The GRADE approach was used to assess certainty of evidence for primary outcomes. Results: Fourteen RCTs assessing CGM were included, with 825 patients in 9 RCTs using rt-CGM and 822 in 5 RCTs using FGM. Moderate certainty of evidence indicated that use of CGM had a modest but statistically significant reduction in HbA1c levels of about 0.32%. Our analyses of each device type separately showed similar reductions in HbA1c (0.34% and 0.33%, respectively, for rt-CGM and FGM), with trends for improvement in other glucose metrics favoring rt-CGM over self-monitored blood glucose. Conclusion: Both rt-CGM and flash CGM led to modest but statistically significant declines in HbA1c among individuals with T2DM, with little heterogeneity in the results. However, the duration of the included RCTs was relatively short and few studies reported on important clinical outcomes, such as adverse events, emergency department use, or hospitalization. Longer term studies are needed to determine if the short-term improvements in glucose control leads to improvements in clinically important outcomes.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
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 [31]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 38 · Cited by 76
- Authors
- Uhl, S., Choure, A., Rouse, B., Loblack, A., & Reaven, P.
- Affiliations
- ECRI Institute (US)
- University of Arizona (US)
- Phoenix VA Health Care System (US)
- Corresponding author
- Uhl, Stacey
- Venue
- The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism
- Publisher
- The Endocrine Society
- Published
- 2023-11-21
- Volume
- 109
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1119-1131
- ISSN
- 0021-972X (ISSN-L)
- 1945-7197
- OpenAlex
- W4388866370
- Semantic Scholar
- 6ab9a6b5864ea2666160b87b7f4c593d0a10b9a7
- Cited by
- 76
- References
- 38
- Citations by year
- 2026: 36 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 13
- FWCI
- 2.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism (publishedVersion, public-domain)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
- Keywords
- continuous glucose monitoring, type 2 diabetes, glycemic control, HbA1c, flash glucose monitoring, real-time glucose monitoring, time in range, time in hypoglycemia, self-monitoring of blood glucose
- MeSH terms
- Glycemic Control, Continuous Glucose Monitoring, Adult, Blood Glucose, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Hypoglycemia, Hypoglycemic Agents, Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome
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