BACKGROUND

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) provides important information to aid in achieving glycemic targets in people with diabetes.

PURPOSE

We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CGM with usual care for parameters of glycemic control in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

DATA SOURCES

Many electronic databases were searched for articles published from inception until 30 June 2019.

STUDY SELECTION

We selected RCTs that assessed both changes in HbA1c and time in target range (TIR), together with time below range (TBR), time above range (TAR), and glucose variability expressed as coefficient of variation (CV).

DATA EXTRACTION

Data were extracted from each trial by two investigators.

DATA SYNTHESIS

All results were analyzed by a random effects model to calculate the weighted mean difference (WMD) with the 95% CI. We identified 15 RCTs, lasting 12–36 weeks and involving 2,461 patients. Compared with the usual care (overall data), CGM was associated with modest reduction in HbA1c (WMD −0.17%, 95% CI −0.29 to −0.06, I2 = 96.2%), increase in TIR (WMD 70.74 min, 95% CI 46.73–94.76, I2 = 66.3%), and lower TAR, TBR, and CV, with heterogeneity between studies. The increase in TIR was significant and robust independently of diabetes type, method of insulin delivery, and reason for CGM use. In preplanned subgroup analyses, real-time CGM led to the higher improvement in mean HbA1c (WMD −0.23%, 95% CI −0.36 to −0.10, P < 0.001), TIR (WMD 83.49 min, 95% CI 52.68–114.30, P < 0.001), and TAR, whereas both intermittently scanned CGM and sensor-augmented pump were associated with the greater decline in TBR.

LIMITATIONS

Heterogeneity was high for most of the study outcomes; all studies were sponsored by industry, had short duration, and used an open-label design.

CONCLUSIONS

CGM improves glycemic control by expanding TIR and decreasing TBR, TAR, and glucose variability in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

The glucose monitoring field represents an essential component of the management of diabetes. Beside self–blood glucose monitoring (SBGM), which primarily supported self-management and medication adjustment of people with diabetes, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has emerged as a valuable tool to assess the effectiveness and safety of treatment in many patients with type 1 diabetes and in selected patients with type 2 diabetes treated with intensive insulin regimens (1).

Currently, available CGM systems are made of a sensor, which measures glucose levels in the interstitial fluid at 1- to 5-min intervals, and a transmitter that collects and forwards glucose values to the third component (a receiver), responsible for displaying data. Alternative modalities for continuously monitoring glucose trends are represented by real-time CGM (rtCGM), in which readers, either stand-alone devices or integrated into insulin pumps or mobile phones, display transmitted interstitial glucose readings in real time, or intermittently scanned glucose monitoring (iCGM), by which glucose values are displayed on demand when the sensor is scanned with a reading device (2). Applying these technologies to diabetes management results in immediate information regarding glucose levels to the user, as well as glucose trend, its current direction, and rate of change, leading to an increased time in the target glucose range by reducing hyperglycemia and minimizing the occurrence of hypoglycemia (2,3). In previous meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in patients with both type 1 (46) and type 2 diabetes (7,8), the use of CGM provided a reduction in HbA1c of ∼0.3%, with less hypoglycemia (4,5), compared with usual care.

The large quantity of glucose readings collected by CGM allows users to obtain a more complete profile of the glycemic status over the entire day, including the time spent in the target ranges (TIR) (usually 70–180 mg/dL) and the time spent in hypo- and hyperglycemia, as well as measures of glucose variability, adding some useful information for assessment of the current glycemic profile in addition to what is provided by the HbA1c (9,10). A recent international consensus on the use of CGM highlighted the importance of assessing and reporting the percentages of TIR, time below range (TBR), and time above range (TAR) in conjunction with measures of glucose variability as key metrics for the evaluation of glucose control in clinical studies (9).

Although there have been several systematic reviews with meta-analyses of clinical research assessing the contribution of CGM to glycemic goals over usual care (48), none of these studies estimate the effects of the available CGM systems on diabetes control in terms of TIR, TBR, TAR, or glucose variability. The evaluation of the efficacy and safety of different CGM systems (rtCGM, iCGM, or sensor-augmented pump [SAP]) on these emerging metrics may help clinicians to assess the duration, frequency, and degree of fluctuations in blood glucose levels, thus contributing to improve the overall glucose control. We here provide a systematic review with meta-analysis of RCTs including both people with type 1 and with type 2 diabetes, with the aim of determining 1) whether the use of CGM results in improved glucose control as increased TIR or decreased HbA1c and 2) whether CGM systems can lower TBR, TAR, and glucose variability, as compared with usual care.

This Systematic Review and Meta-analysis follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (11). The PRISMA checklist and the protocol of this study are provided in Supplementary Data.

Data Sources and Searches

A comprehensive search of MEDLINE (via PubMed), Google Scholar, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov was run from the inception of each database to 30 June 2019. The complete search used for PubMed was: (continuous glucose monitoring[MeSH Terms]) OR CGM[Text Word]) OR real time continuous glucose monitoring[Text Word]) OR FGM[Text Word]) OR flash glucose monitoring[Text Word]) OR intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring[Text Word]) OR intermittently viewed continuous glucose monitoring [Text Word]) OR iCGM [Text Word]) OR isCGM [Text Word]) OR SAP[Text Word]) OR sensor augmented pump[Text Word]) OR Low Glucose Suspend [Text Word]) OR LGS [Text Word]) OR suspend before low [Text Word]) OR predictive glucose suspend [Text Word]) OR Predictive Low Glucose Management [Text Word]) OR PLGM [Text Word]) AND type 1 diabetes[Text Word])) OR type 2 diabetes[Text Word]) AND glycemic control[Text Word]) OR diabetes control[Text Word]) OR time in target[Text Word]) OR time in range[Text Word]) AND hypoglycemia[Text Word]) OR time in hypoglycemia[Text Word]) AND hyperglycemia[Text Word]) OR time in hyperglycemia[Text Word]) AND randomized controlled trial[Text Word]). We also did a manual search, using the reference list of prior reviews and meta-analyses, to track relevant RCTs that were not indexed by normal keywords.

Study Selection

We selected RCTs if they had at least 12 weeks’ duration of intervention; included patients of any age with type 1 or type 2 diabetes treated with an intensive insulin regimen (multiple daily injections of insulin [MDI] or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion [CSII]); compared CGM as rtCGM, iCGM, or SAP with the standard care (usually SBGM); and reported both HbA1c and TIR together with the other outcomes of interest, including time spent in hypoglycemia, time spent in hyperglycemia, and coefficient of variation (CV) at the end of the study period. Studies involving pregnant patients were also included. Moreover, trials were included if CGM was used for >50% of the total follow-up time and a blinded CGM phase at the beginning and at the end of the study was provided to collect data for patients of control groups. Both crossover and parallel-group designs were included. We excluded studies using retrospective CGM without real-time reading of glucose values, trials where the insulin regimen differed between intervention and control groups, extension studies from previous trials, and observational studies or publications without original data or with incomplete data (abstracts, letters, clinical reviews, editorials, and commentaries). Two investigators (M.I.M. and A.M.) independently decided trial eligibility on the basis of the titles and abstracts, and studies that met the inclusion criteria were retrieved for full-text assessment. All disagreements were resolved by consensus.

Data Extraction and Quality Assessment

Two independent investigators (M.I.M. and A.M.) used a standardized form to extract data, and disagreements were resolved by consensus after discussion. Any RCTs that met the inclusion/exclusion criteria were included in the analysis. Supplementary material was consulted. The following data were extracted from each retrieved study: 1) authors and year of publication; 2) study design; 3) study duration; 4) patients’ data including type of diabetes, age-group category, and mean age; 5) CGM modality with type of sensor; 6) comparator strategy; 7) baseline HbA1c; 8) insulin regimen in both intervention and control groups; 9) studies’ primary outcome; 10) study funder; 11) HbA1c at the end point; 12) TIR, TBR, and TAR at the end point; and 13) CV at the end point. TBR was differentiated as level 1 hypoglycemia (<70–54 mg/dL [3.9–3.0 mmol/L]) and level 2 hypoglycemia (<54 mg/dL [3.0 mmol/L]); TAR was differentiated as level 1 hyperglycemia (>180 mg/dL [10 mmol/L]) and level 2 hyperglycemia (>250 mg/dL [13 mmol/L]). When TIR, TBR, or TAR was reported as percentage of time in the 24 h, a conversion in minutes has been made in order to use a single measure unit for all included studies.

The Cochrane Collaboration risk-of-bias tool was used to evaluate the quality of RCTs (12). We assessed risk of bias in random sequence generation and allocation concealment (selection bias), blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias), blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias), incomplete outcome data (attrition bias), and selective reporting (reporting bias). Studies were rated as having a high, low, and unclear risk of bias. The quality of each RCT was assessed blinded by two reviewers (M.I.M. and A.M.). Disagreements were resolved by consensus after discussion.

Data Synthesis and Analysis

The coprimary outcomes were the difference in HbA1c and in minutes of time in the target range during the study period (derived from CGM [target range ≥70–180 mg/dL]). Secondary outcomes were minutes of time in hypo- and hyperglycemic ranges and CV as metrics of glucose variability. Changes from baseline in HbA1c, TIR, CV, and hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic levels were analyzed as continuous variables using mean difference change between groups and its SD as summary measures. From each study, the mean change from baseline between the two groups and its SD was extracted. If change from baseline was not available, the mean difference and its SD at the end point time were used instead of mean difference change. If not reported, SD of the difference was estimated by standard equations from the reported SE, CI, and P value or calculated from SDs of the two groups (13). If variability was reported as interquartile range (IQR), SD was estimated from IQR (14). Heterogeneity between studies was assessed by using Q statistic, and a P value <0.10 was considered significant (13). The proportion of variation in observed effects due to heterogeneity rather than sampling error was evaluated by using I2 index (15). For each outcome, for estimation of a weighted mean difference (WMD) a random effects model was used if overall heterogeneity was significant; otherwise, a fixed effects model was used. Publication bias was assessed visually with funnel plots and with Egger test (16) when at least 10 studies were included in the meta-analysis; a P value of <0.10 was considered significant. If such bias was evident, the trim-and-fill method was used to generate a pooled estimate that accounted for the unpublished findings (17). For all outcomes, we did preplanned subgroup analyses restricted to glucose monitoring modality (rtCGM, iCGM, and SAP), diabetes type (type 1 and type 2 diabetes) background therapy (CSII, MDI, or both), and different reason for using CGM (improving glycemic control, hypoglycemia awareness, reducing hypoglycemia, pregnancy, or planning pregnancy). Sensitivity analyses were also performed excluding pediatric patients and pregnant women (planned or unplanned pregnancy) and participants with type 2 diabetes. Data were analyzed using Stata, version 14 (StataCorp, College Station, TX). All statistical tests were two sided, and P values <0.05 were regarded as significant.

Search Results

The process of studies’ selection is reported in Fig. 1. The initial search identified 4,015 articles, of which 1,781 were reviewed on the basis of the titles and abstracts after removal of duplicates. Further excluded articles (n = 1,723) were mainly reviews, comments, editorials, meta-analyses, or observational studies. Of the remaining 58 full-text studies retrieved, 43 were excluded because they did not present interest data (n = 24), were extension studies (n = 6), compared two modalities of CGM (n = 4), were study protocols (n = 3), did not use rtCGM (n = 4), or were of short duration (n = 2) (Supplementary Table 1). Finally, 15 RCTs (1832) with 18 comparisons, including a total of 2,461 participants (1,308 in the intervention groups and 1,153 in the control groups), were included in the quantitative synthesis and meta-analysis.

Figure 1

Process of study selection.

Figure 1

Process of study selection.

Close modal

Study and Patient Characteristics

Table 1 shows the characteristics of the included RCTs with baseline patients’ features. The trials were published between 2008 and 2019, and all of them received industry funding, except two (18,21). All studies used an open-label design; three studies had a crossover design (22,24,29), and the remaining studies had a parallel-group design. The trials had a duration ranging from 12 to 36 weeks. Ten studies used rtCGM (1827), three studies used iCGM (2830), and two studies used SAP (31,32). Among the 10 studies using rtCGM, 9 studies compared rtCGM with SMBG (18,19,2127) and 1 study compared CGM sensor on with CGM sensor off (20). Among the remaining five studies, three studies compared iCGM with SMBG (2830) and two study studies compared SAP with CSII (31,32). Devices used were Dexcom SEVEN, Dexcom G4 Platinum CGM System, Dexcom G5 mobile, Enilite, Medtronic MiniMed Paradigm, Medtronic MiniMed MiniLink, Guardian REAL-Time, MiniMed 640G with SmartGuard, FreeStyle Libre, and FreeStyle Navigator. Insulin delivery was by CSII alone in three trials (20,31,32), by MDI in five trials (23,24,26,27,30), and by CSII or MDI in seven trials (18,19,21,22,25,28,29). The primary outcome was the change in HbA1c level in seven studies (18,20,2326,29), the time spent in hypoglycemia in three studies (19,28,30), the difference in the time spent in target range in two studies (22,31), the number of hypoglycemic events in two studies (27,32), and the difference in hypoglycemia awareness in one study (21).

Table 1

Characteristics of trials included in the meta-analysis

First author, year (reference no.), characteristics of subjectsStudy designStudy duration (weeks)Diabetes typeN intervention/controlMean age intervention/control, yearsBaseline HbA1c intervention/control, % (mmol/mol)Intervention/sensor/comparatorInsulin regimenPrimary outcomeSponsor
JDRF, 2008 (18P, O 26 T1    rtCGM/Dexcom SEVEN or MiniMed Paradigm REAL-Time or FreeStyle Navigator/SBGM CSII, MDI Change in HbA1c level at 26 weeks JDRF 
 ≥25 years old    52/46 41.2/44.6 7.6/7.6 (60/60)     
 15–24 years old    57/53 18.8/18.2 8.0/7.9 (64/63)     
 8–14 years old    56/58 11.4/11.6 8.0/7.9 (64/63)     
O'Connell, 2009 (31), adult and pediatric P, O 12 T1 31/31 23.4/23.0 7.3/7.5 (56/58) SAP/MiniMed Paradigm REAL-Time/CSII CSII Difference in the proportion of TIR (70–180 mg/dL) Medtronic 
Battelino, 2011 (19), adult and pediatric P, O 26 T1 62/58 25.7/26.0 6.9/6.9 (52/52) rtCGM/FreeStyle Navigator/SBGM CSII, MDI Time spent in hypoglycemia (<63 mg/dL) during the 26 weeks Abbott Diabetes Care 
Battelino, 2012 (20), adult and pediatric CO, O 24 T1 77/76 28.0/28.0 8.3/8.5 (63/69) rtCGM/Guardian REAL-Time/CGM sensor off CSII Difference in HbA1c levels between the sensor on and sensor off arms after 6 months of follow-up Medtronic 
Little, 2014 (21), adult P, O 24 T1 42/41 50.1/47.1 8.2/8.3 (66/67) rtCGM/CE-marked rtCGM (Medtronic)/SBGM CSII, MDI Difference in hypoglycemia awareness at 24 weeks Diabetes UK, NIH, Cambridge NIHR 
Bolinder, 2016 (28), adult P, O 24 T1 119/120 42.0/45.0 6.8/6.8 (51/51) iCGM/Freestyle Libre/SBGM CSII, MDI Time spent in state of hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dL) Abbott Diabetes Care 
van Beers, 2016 (22), adult CO, O 16 T1 26/26 48.6/48.6 7.5/7.5 (58/58) rtCGM/Enilite/SBGM CSII, MDI Mean difference in percentage of time spent in state of normoglycemia Eli Lilly, Sanofi, Medtronic 
Beck, 2017 (23), adult and pediatric P, O 24 T1 105/53 46.0/51.0 8.6/8.6 (70/70) rtCGM/Dexcom G4 Platinum CGM System/SBGM MDI Difference in change in HbA1c levels from baseline to 24 weeks Dexcom, Inc. 
Beck, 2017 (24), adult P, O 24 T2 79/79 60.0/60.0 8.5/8.5 (69/69) rtCGM/Dexcom G4 Platinum CGM System/SBGM MDI HbA1c reduction at 24 weeks Dexcom, Inc. 
Feig, 2017 (25P, O  T1    rtCGM/Guardian REAL-Time or MiniMed MiniLink/SBGM CSII, MDI Difference in change in HbA1c from randomization to 34 weeks’ gestation in the pregnancy trial and to 24 weeks or conception in the planning pregnancy trial JDRF, Medtronic 
 Women planning pregnancy  24  53/57 33.5/32.4 7.9/7.8 (63/62)     
 Pregnant women  36  108/107 31.4/31.5 7.4/7.4 (57/57)     
Haak, 2017 (29), adult P, O 24 T2 149/75 59.0/59.5 8.7/8.9 (72/74) iCGM/FreeStyle Libre/SBGM CSII, MDI Difference in HbA1c at 6 months Abbott Diabetes Care 
Ruedy, 2017 (26), adult CO, O 24 T1, T2 63/53 67.0/67.0 8.4/8.6 (68/70) rtCGM/Dexcom G4 Platinum/SBGM MDI Change of HbA1c from baseline to 24 weeks Dexcom, Inc. 
Heinemann, 2018 (27), adult P, O 24 T1 75/74 45.8/47.3 7.6/7.3 (60/56) rtCGM/Dexcom G5 Mobile/SBGM MDI No. of hypoglycemic events measured by rtCGM during the follow-up phase compared with baseline Dexcom, Inc. 
Oskarsson, 2018 (30), adult P, O 24 T1 82/81 42.0/44.0 6.8/6.7 (51/50) iCGM/FreeStyle Libre/SBGM MDI Change in time spent in a state of hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dL) from baseline Abbott Diabetes Care 
Bosi, 2019 (32), adult P, O 24 T1 76/77 49.0/47.4 7.7/7.6 (60/59) SAP/MiniMed 640G with SmartGuard/CSII plus SBMG CSII Mean no. of sensor hypoglycemic events: sensor glucose values ≤55 mg/dL (3.1 mmol/L) for >20 min Medtronic 
First author, year (reference no.), characteristics of subjectsStudy designStudy duration (weeks)Diabetes typeN intervention/controlMean age intervention/control, yearsBaseline HbA1c intervention/control, % (mmol/mol)Intervention/sensor/comparatorInsulin regimenPrimary outcomeSponsor
JDRF, 2008 (18P, O 26 T1    rtCGM/Dexcom SEVEN or MiniMed Paradigm REAL-Time or FreeStyle Navigator/SBGM CSII, MDI Change in HbA1c level at 26 weeks JDRF 
 ≥25 years old    52/46 41.2/44.6 7.6/7.6 (60/60)     
 15–24 years old    57/53 18.8/18.2 8.0/7.9 (64/63)     
 8–14 years old    56/58 11.4/11.6 8.0/7.9 (64/63)     
O'Connell, 2009 (31), adult and pediatric P, O 12 T1 31/31 23.4/23.0 7.3/7.5 (56/58) SAP/MiniMed Paradigm REAL-Time/CSII CSII Difference in the proportion of TIR (70–180 mg/dL) Medtronic 
Battelino, 2011 (19), adult and pediatric P, O 26 T1 62/58 25.7/26.0 6.9/6.9 (52/52) rtCGM/FreeStyle Navigator/SBGM CSII, MDI Time spent in hypoglycemia (<63 mg/dL) during the 26 weeks Abbott Diabetes Care 
Battelino, 2012 (20), adult and pediatric CO, O 24 T1 77/76 28.0/28.0 8.3/8.5 (63/69) rtCGM/Guardian REAL-Time/CGM sensor off CSII Difference in HbA1c levels between the sensor on and sensor off arms after 6 months of follow-up Medtronic 
Little, 2014 (21), adult P, O 24 T1 42/41 50.1/47.1 8.2/8.3 (66/67) rtCGM/CE-marked rtCGM (Medtronic)/SBGM CSII, MDI Difference in hypoglycemia awareness at 24 weeks Diabetes UK, NIH, Cambridge NIHR 
Bolinder, 2016 (28), adult P, O 24 T1 119/120 42.0/45.0 6.8/6.8 (51/51) iCGM/Freestyle Libre/SBGM CSII, MDI Time spent in state of hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dL) Abbott Diabetes Care 
van Beers, 2016 (22), adult CO, O 16 T1 26/26 48.6/48.6 7.5/7.5 (58/58) rtCGM/Enilite/SBGM CSII, MDI Mean difference in percentage of time spent in state of normoglycemia Eli Lilly, Sanofi, Medtronic 
Beck, 2017 (23), adult and pediatric P, O 24 T1 105/53 46.0/51.0 8.6/8.6 (70/70) rtCGM/Dexcom G4 Platinum CGM System/SBGM MDI Difference in change in HbA1c levels from baseline to 24 weeks Dexcom, Inc. 
Beck, 2017 (24), adult P, O 24 T2 79/79 60.0/60.0 8.5/8.5 (69/69) rtCGM/Dexcom G4 Platinum CGM System/SBGM MDI HbA1c reduction at 24 weeks Dexcom, Inc. 
Feig, 2017 (25P, O  T1    rtCGM/Guardian REAL-Time or MiniMed MiniLink/SBGM CSII, MDI Difference in change in HbA1c from randomization to 34 weeks’ gestation in the pregnancy trial and to 24 weeks or conception in the planning pregnancy trial JDRF, Medtronic 
 Women planning pregnancy  24  53/57 33.5/32.4 7.9/7.8 (63/62)     
 Pregnant women  36  108/107 31.4/31.5 7.4/7.4 (57/57)     
Haak, 2017 (29), adult P, O 24 T2 149/75 59.0/59.5 8.7/8.9 (72/74) iCGM/FreeStyle Libre/SBGM CSII, MDI Difference in HbA1c at 6 months Abbott Diabetes Care 
Ruedy, 2017 (26), adult CO, O 24 T1, T2 63/53 67.0/67.0 8.4/8.6 (68/70) rtCGM/Dexcom G4 Platinum/SBGM MDI Change of HbA1c from baseline to 24 weeks Dexcom, Inc. 
Heinemann, 2018 (27), adult P, O 24 T1 75/74 45.8/47.3 7.6/7.3 (60/56) rtCGM/Dexcom G5 Mobile/SBGM MDI No. of hypoglycemic events measured by rtCGM during the follow-up phase compared with baseline Dexcom, Inc. 
Oskarsson, 2018 (30), adult P, O 24 T1 82/81 42.0/44.0 6.8/6.7 (51/50) iCGM/FreeStyle Libre/SBGM MDI Change in time spent in a state of hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dL) from baseline Abbott Diabetes Care 
Bosi, 2019 (32), adult P, O 24 T1 76/77 49.0/47.4 7.7/7.6 (60/59) SAP/MiniMed 640G with SmartGuard/CSII plus SBMG CSII Mean no. of sensor hypoglycemic events: sensor glucose values ≤55 mg/dL (3.1 mmol/L) for >20 min Medtronic 

CO, crossover; NIH, National Institutes of Health; NIHR, National Institute for Health Research; O, open-label; P, parallel; T1, type 1 diabetes; T2, type 2 diabetes.

The participants in all trials were adults (>18 years old); five studies (1820,23,31) included also pediatric patients, and only one study (25) included pregnant women or women planning pregnancy. Twelve studies included patients with type 1 diabetes (1825,27,3032), two studies focused on patients with type 2 diabetes (24,29), and one study evaluated both patients with type 1 and with type 2 diabetes (26). Mean patient age ranged from 11.4 to 67 years, and mean baseline HbA1c levels ranged from 6.7% to 8.9%, with a median of 7.8% (IQR 7.4–8.3) in the intervention groups and 7.7% (IQR 7.4–8.5) in the comparator groups.

Risk of Bias

According to the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias, selection bias was evaluated as low in all trials, except one (18), for allocation concealment; performance bias was evaluated as high in all trials for blinding of participants and personnel, given that none of the trials masked participants to the intervention; and detection bias was evaluated as unclear in 10 trials and high in 4 trials for blinding of outcome assessment. Attrition and reporting biases were generally low risk for all studies, except one (26) (Supplementary Fig. 1 and Supplementary Table 2).

Coprimary Outcome

Eighteen comparisons from 15 studies with 2,461 participants (1,308 in the intervention group and 1,153 in the control group) were pooled for the primary outcome (change in HbA1c and change in TIR). Compared with control strategies, HbA1c was 0.17% (95% CI −0.29 to −0.06, P = 0.003) lower with the CGM, with high heterogeneity between studies (I2 = 96.2%, P < 0.001) (Fig. 2A and Table 2) and no evidence of publication bias (Egger test, P = 0.166). In the prespecified subgroup analysis, the mean reduction of HbA1c was 0.23% in the 13 comparisons using rtCGM, with high heterogeneity (I2 = 92.2%) (Table 2). Neither iCGM nor SAP significantly changed mean HbA1c levels, with no evidence of statistically significant heterogeneity for the three comparisons using iCGM (I2 = 0%) and high heterogeneity for the two comparisons using SAP (I2 = 85.5%) (Table 2). CGM produced the greater HbA1c reduction in trials in which its use was aimed at improving glycemic control (−0.31, 95% CI −0.43 to −0.19, P < 0.001) (Supplementary Table 3); a significant 0.16% decrease of HbA1c was associated with people with type 1 diabetes but not people with type 2 diabetes. HbA1c levels did not differ based on background therapy with CSII or MDI (Supplementary Table 3).

Figure 2

Forest plots of meta‐analysis for HbA1c (A) and TIR (B) change from baseline in all 16 comparisons. The results are expressed as WMD. TIR, 70–180 mg/dL. (1), (2), and (3) refer to different arms of the same study (ref. 18) and specifically age-group 8–14 years (1), age-group 15–24 years (2), and age-group >25 years (3); (4) refers to ref. 24; and (5) and (6) refer to different arms of the same study (ref. 25) and specifically to pregnant women (5) and women planning pregnancy (6).

Figure 2

Forest plots of meta‐analysis for HbA1c (A) and TIR (B) change from baseline in all 16 comparisons. The results are expressed as WMD. TIR, 70–180 mg/dL. (1), (2), and (3) refer to different arms of the same study (ref. 18) and specifically age-group 8–14 years (1), age-group 15–24 years (2), and age-group >25 years (3); (4) refers to ref. 24; and (5) and (6) refer to different arms of the same study (ref. 25) and specifically to pregnant women (5) and women planning pregnancy (6).

Close modal
Table 2

Preplanned subgroup analysis

ComparisonsPatientsControl subjectsEstimated WMD (95% CI)PI2P value of Q test
HbA1c        
 rtCGM 13 851 769 −0.23 (−0.36 to −0.10) <0.001 92.2% <0.001 
 iCGM 350 276 0.00 (−0.01 to 0.02) 0.861 0.0% 0.934 
 SAP 107 108 −0.16 (−0.67 to 0.35) 0.542 85.5% 0.009 
 Overall 18 1,308 1,153 −0.17 (−0.29 to −0.06) 0.003 96.2% <0.001 
TIR        
 rtCGM 13 851 769 83.49 (52.68–114.30) <0.001 66.5% <0.001 
 iCGM 350 276 53.91 (28.54–79.27) <0.001 0.0% 0.617 
 SAP 107 108 37.10 (0.74–73.45) 0.045 0.0% 0.799 
 Overall 18 1,308 1,153 70.74 (46.73–94.76) <0.001 66.3% <0.001 
TBR level 1        
 rtCGM 13 851 769 −15.82 (−25.70 to −5.95) 0.002 96.6% <0.001 
 iCGM 350 276 −56.26 (−88.91 to −23.60) 0.001 93.7% <0.001 
 SAP 107 108 −41.04 (−127.10 to 45.02) 0.350 88.1% 0.004 
 Overall 18 1,308 1,153 −27.16 (−42.08 to −12.25) <0.001 98.9% <0.001 
TBR level 2        
 rtCGM 524 450 −5.65 (−10.83 to −0.46) 0.033 74.3% <0.001 
 iCGM 350 276 −26.23 (−49.07 to −3.40) 0.024 86.8% 0.001 
 SAP 76 77 −37.40 (−46.05 to −28.75) <0.001 — — 
 Overall 12 950 803 −13.58 (−20.63 to −6.53) <0.001 91.7% <0.001 
TAR level 1        
 rtCGM 12 788 716 −54.34 (−75.03 to −33.64) <0.001 21.7% 0.230 
 iCGM 231 156 35.52 (−3.00 to 74.03) 0.071 0.0% 0.588 
 SAP 107 108 23.98 (−34.95 to 82.90) 0.425 26.3% 0.244 
 Overall 16 1,126 980 −30.26 (−58.15 to −2.38) 0.033 67.9% <0.001 
TAR level 2        
 rtCGM 545 462 −44.79 (−74.97 to −14.61) 0.004 69.6% 0.002 
 iCGM 350 276 −16.16 (−30.57 to −1.74) 0.028 0.0% 0.562 
 SAP 76 77 −1.44 (−28.09 to 25.21) 0.916 — — 
 Overall 12 971 815 −27.68 (−45.31 to −9.97) 0.004 63.9% 0.002 
CV        
 rtCGM 509 449 −2.56 (−5.28 to 0.17) 0.066 93.1% <0.001 
 iCGM 350 276 −3.86 (−5.15 to −2.57) <0.001 78.1% 0.010 
 SAP — — — — — — — 
 Overall 10 859 725 −3.09 (−4.43 to −1.74) <0.001 90.7% <0.001 
ComparisonsPatientsControl subjectsEstimated WMD (95% CI)PI2P value of Q test
HbA1c        
 rtCGM 13 851 769 −0.23 (−0.36 to −0.10) <0.001 92.2% <0.001 
 iCGM 350 276 0.00 (−0.01 to 0.02) 0.861 0.0% 0.934 
 SAP 107 108 −0.16 (−0.67 to 0.35) 0.542 85.5% 0.009 
 Overall 18 1,308 1,153 −0.17 (−0.29 to −0.06) 0.003 96.2% <0.001 
TIR        
 rtCGM 13 851 769 83.49 (52.68–114.30) <0.001 66.5% <0.001 
 iCGM 350 276 53.91 (28.54–79.27) <0.001 0.0% 0.617 
 SAP 107 108 37.10 (0.74–73.45) 0.045 0.0% 0.799 
 Overall 18 1,308 1,153 70.74 (46.73–94.76) <0.001 66.3% <0.001 
TBR level 1        
 rtCGM 13 851 769 −15.82 (−25.70 to −5.95) 0.002 96.6% <0.001 
 iCGM 350 276 −56.26 (−88.91 to −23.60) 0.001 93.7% <0.001 
 SAP 107 108 −41.04 (−127.10 to 45.02) 0.350 88.1% 0.004 
 Overall 18 1,308 1,153 −27.16 (−42.08 to −12.25) <0.001 98.9% <0.001 
TBR level 2        
 rtCGM 524 450 −5.65 (−10.83 to −0.46) 0.033 74.3% <0.001 
 iCGM 350 276 −26.23 (−49.07 to −3.40) 0.024 86.8% 0.001 
 SAP 76 77 −37.40 (−46.05 to −28.75) <0.001 — — 
 Overall 12 950 803 −13.58 (−20.63 to −6.53) <0.001 91.7% <0.001 
TAR level 1        
 rtCGM 12 788 716 −54.34 (−75.03 to −33.64) <0.001 21.7% 0.230 
 iCGM 231 156 35.52 (−3.00 to 74.03) 0.071 0.0% 0.588 
 SAP 107 108 23.98 (−34.95 to 82.90) 0.425 26.3% 0.244 
 Overall 16 1,126 980 −30.26 (−58.15 to −2.38) 0.033 67.9% <0.001 
TAR level 2        
 rtCGM 545 462 −44.79 (−74.97 to −14.61) 0.004 69.6% 0.002 
 iCGM 350 276 −16.16 (−30.57 to −1.74) 0.028 0.0% 0.562 
 SAP 76 77 −1.44 (−28.09 to 25.21) 0.916 — — 
 Overall 12 971 815 −27.68 (−45.31 to −9.97) 0.004 63.9% 0.002 
CV        
 rtCGM 509 449 −2.56 (−5.28 to 0.17) 0.066 93.1% <0.001 
 iCGM 350 276 −3.86 (−5.15 to −2.57) <0.001 78.1% 0.010 
 SAP — — — — — — — 
 Overall 10 859 725 −3.09 (−4.43 to −1.74) <0.001 90.7% <0.001 

Compared with control, CGM was associated with a significant increase of TIR (70.74 min, 95% CI 46.73–94.76, P < 0.001), with heterogeneity between studies (I2 = 66.3%, P < 0.001) (Fig. 2B and Table 2) and no evidence of publication bias (Egger test, P = 0.243). In the prespecified subgroup analysis, TIR increased more in trials using rtCGM (83.49, 95% CI 52.68 to 114.30, P < 0.001) than iCGM (53.91, 95% CI 28.54–79.27, P < 0.001) or SAP (37.10, 95% CI 0.74–73.45, P = 0.045) (Table 2). Heterogeneity was found only in the 13 comparisons using rtCGM (I2 = 66.5%). Results were also consistent with those of the prespecified subgroup analysis based on type of diabetes, background therapy, and CGM reason for use; no evidence of statistical heterogeneity was displayed in the comparisons using CSII therapy and in those in which CGM was used for pregnancy or planning pregnancy or to reduce hypoglycemia (Supplementary Table 4).

The sensitivity analysis performed to exclude the pediatric population and pregnant women/women planning pregnancy showed that CGM did not significantly reduce HbA1c (−0.16%, 95% CI −0.32 to 0.01, P = 0.066) (Supplementary Fig. 2A), even considering only the adult population with type 1 diabetes (−0.12%, 95% CI −0.27 to 0.02, P = 0.103) (Supplementary Fig. 2B). Results for TIR change were similar to those obtained in the overall analysis (73.41 min, 95% CI 43.44–103.38, P < 0.001) (Supplementary Fig. 3A), even excluding studies involving adults with type 2 diabetes (72.18 min, 95% CI 37.93–106.43, P < 0.001) (Supplementary Fig. 3B), without reducing statistical heterogeneity.

Secondary Outcomes

The overall analysis of the 18 comparisons that assessed the TBR level 1 hypoglycemia during treatment showed a significant reduction in the proportion of time spent <70 mg/dL when CGM was compared with control strategies (−27.16 min, 95% CI −42.08 to −12.25, P < 0.001) (Table 2), with high heterogeneity (I2 = 98.9%, P < 0.001) and no evidence of publication bias (Egger test, P = 0.669). In the prespecified subgroup analysis, TBR (level 1 hypoglycemia) significantly decreased in trials using rtCGM (−15.82, 95% CI −25.70 to −5.95, P = 0.002) and iCGM (−56.26, 95% CI −88.91 to −23.60, P = 0.001) but not in the studies using SAP (Table 2). Heterogeneity remained high in all subgroup comparisons (Table 2). The greater decrease in TBR level 1 hypoglycemia was associated with studies using CGM for hypoglycemia awareness, improvement of glycemic control, or reducing hypoglycemia; moreover, CGM led to greater reduction of TBR level 1 hypoglycemia in type 1 diabetes and in people using MDI (Supplementary Table 5). Twelve comparisons with 1,753 patients were pooled for TBR level 2 hypoglycemia. The time <54 mg/dL was 13.58 min (95% CI −20.63 to −6.53, P < 0.001) less with CGM compared with control strategies (Table 2), with high heterogeneity (I2 = 91.7%, P < 0.001) and evidence of publication bias (Egger test, P = 0.010). The trim-and-fill test reduced this estimate without changing its statistical significance (−1.66, 95% CI −1.99 to −0.34, P = 0.006). In the prespecified subgroup analysis, the greater decline in TBR level 2 hypoglycemia was associated with SAP (−37.40 min, 95% CI −46.05 to −28.75, P < 0.001) (Table 2). Moreover, CGM led to significant reduction in TBR level 2 hypoglycemia in studies involving a population with type 1 diabetes or using CGM to reduce hypoglycemia; heterogeneity remained high in all subgroup comparisons (Supplementary Table 6). The sensitivity analysis performed to exclude the pediatric population and pregnant women or women planning pregnancy showed that CGM led to TBR reduction (both level 1 and level 2 hypoglycemia) slightly greater than for those obtained in the overall analysis (Supplementary Figs. 4A and 5A), even in the studies restricted to type 1 diabetes (Supplementary Figs. 4B and 5B), without reducing statistical heterogeneity.

In the overall analysis of the pooled 16 comparisons, CGM led to a significant reduction of TAR level 1 hyperglycemia (180 mg/dL) compared with control regimens (−30.26 min, 95% CI −58.15 to −2.38, P = 0.033), with heterogeneity (I2 = 67.9%, P < 0.001) and no evidence of publication bias (Egger’s test, P = 0.689). In the prespecified subgroup analysis, the mean change was significant only in the 12 comparisons using rtCGM (−54.34 min, 95% CI −75.03 to −33.64, P < 0.001) and not in those using iCGM or SAP (Table 2). Heterogeneity was low in all of the subgroups based on CGM modality (Table 2). Moreover, TAR level 1 hyperglycemia was lower in the 14 comparisons involving type 1 diabetes and in those in which the reasons for CGM use were the improvement of glycemic control and pregnancy or planning pregnancy (Supplementary Table 7). Twelve comparisons were pooled for TAR level 2 hyperglycemia (>250 mg/dL). Compared with control regimens, CGM significantly decreased time >250 mg/dL (−27.68 min, 95% CI −45.31 to −9.97, P = 0.004), with heterogeneity (I2 = 63.9%, P = 0.002) and no evidence of publication bias (Egger test, P = 0.358). The prespecified subgroup analysis showed that the highest decrease in TAR level 2 hyperglycemia was associated with rtCGM (−44.79 min, 95% CI −74.97 to −14.61, P = 0.004); heterogeneity was found between the trials using rtCGM (I2 = 69.6%, P = 0.002) but not in those using iCGM or SAP (Table 2). Moreover, TAR level 2 hyperglycemia significantly decreased in studies involving type 1 diabetes, using MDI as background therapy or aiming at improving glycemic control or reducing hypoglycemia with CGM (Supplementary Table 8). After exclusion of the pediatric population and pregnant women or women planning pregnancy, and people with type 2 diabetes, the mean change in TAR level 1 hyperglycemia was not significant (Supplementary Fig. 6A and B); on the contrary, the decrease in TAR level 2 hyperglycemia was similar to that obtained in the overall analysis (Supplementary Fig. 7A), even in the studies restricted to type 1 diabetes (Supplementary Fig. 7B), without reducing statistical heterogeneity.

The overall analysis of the 10 comparisons that assessed the CV during intervention showed a significant decrease of CV with CGM compared with usual care (−3.09%, 95% CI −4.43 to −1.74, P < 0.001), with high heterogeneity (I2 = 90.7%, P < 0.001) and no evidence of publication bias (Egger test, P = 0.263) (Table 2). In the prespecified subgroup analysis, the highest mean reduction of CV was associated with iCGM (−3.86%, 95% CI −5.15 to −2.57%, P < 0.001); on the other hand, a not significant reduction of CV was found in the seven comparisons using rtCGM (Table 2). Heterogeneity was high in both subgroups (Table 2). In the sensitivity analysis, the exclusion of the pediatric population and pregnant women or women planning pregnancy led to results similar to those obtained in the overall analysis, without reducing the statistical heterogeneity (Supplementary Fig. 8).

In this systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs comparing CGM with conventional therapy in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes, use of CGM led to a modest 0.17% reduction in HbA1c, with a 70.74 min increase of time spent in the target range. Moreover, CGM provided additional benefits in glycemic control, including the significant reduction of TBR (both level 1 and 2 hypoglycemia), TAR (both level 1 and level 2 hyperglycemia), and CV, thus suggesting an improvement of glucose variability compared with usual care. rtCGM led to better improvement in HbA1c, TIR, and TAR, whereas both iCGM and SAP were associated with higher decline in TBR. CGM efficacy was evident primarily in adults with type 1 diabetes. These results are novel, as no previous meta-analyses have been conducted to evaluate the efficacy of CGM on emerging metrics of glycemic control, including TIR, TBR, and TAR as well as CV, which is a measure of glucose variability.

HbA1c has been recognized as the most important surrogate index of glycemic control, given its correlation with chronic complications in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes (3335). Our results of a 0.17% reduction in HbA1c levels obtained with CGM indicate only a slight effect of CGM on the average mean glucose over the last 3 months. Such a result may appear insufficient for the great majority of people with diabetes; on the other hand, it may also reflect a more intense effect in reducing hypoglycemia, thus expressing the effort in ameliorating glucose control while reducing glucose variability. According to our analysis, the greater decrease in HbA1c level was obtained in trials with rtCGM (−0.23%) and in those with the aim of improving glycemic control (−0.31%). These findings are consistent with those emerging from previous meta-analyses of studies including both people with type 1 (47) and people with type 2 (78) diabetes, showing an HbA1c reduction of 0.2%–0.3% with CGM compared with usual care (mainly SBGM). Moreover, neither iCGM nor SAP was associated with a significant HbA1c reduction; this may be due to lack of real-time data and alerts and lower baseline HbA1c in trials with iCGM or to the reduction in hypoglycemia that can minimally affect HbA1c levels.

CGM offers the opportunity to acquire a great abundance of glycemic data that allow observation of daily glycemic excursions and identification of patterns of hypo- and hyperglycemia. A number of metrics have recently been proposed for use in clinical practice to help physicians better define the glycemic status of persons with diabetes (36). The three key metrics include the percentage of readings and per day TIR, TBR, and TAR; the increase in the TIR while reducing the TBR is considered the primary glycemic goal to achieve effective and safe glucose control. Our finding of a nearly 5% significant increase of TIR with CGM associated with the reduction in TBR and TAR supports the effectiveness of CGM in improving blood glucose levels in people with diabetes, although results are limited by moderate to high heterogeneity. This is relevant, as recent studies showed correlations between TIR and microvascular complications of diabetes (37,38) as well as HbA1c levels (39,40). Moreover, greater time in target was robust and significant across all of the variables explored in the prespecified subgroup analysis, including diabetes type, background therapy, CGM modality, and reason for use it, with moderate to low or null heterogeneity in most cases.

Our meta-analysis is also the first evaluating the effect of CGM on hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia measured as TBR and TAR, respectively. CGM reduced time <70 mg/dL (TBR level 1 hypoglycemia) of 27 min, which is equivalent to 1.9% time per day spent in hypoglycemia. The highest effect was found in the three trials using iCGM, two of which were specifically designed to study time spent in hypoglycemia (28,30). Of note, the CGM-based target for time in hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dL) is <4% or <1 h in both adults with type 1 and adults with type 2 diabetes (36). On the other hand, the greater reduction of time spent <54 mg/dL (TBR level 2 hypoglycemia) was associated with the only study using SAP (32). This finding is consistent with results from other short-term RCTs comparing devices provided with predictive low glucose management (PLGM) with SAP (4143), which showed the significant reduction of time spent in hypoglycemia favoring the PLGM modality in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (Supplementary Table 9). The ability of these systems to prevent hypoglycemia by suspending insulin delivery when the sensor glucose value is predicted to reach 20 mg/dL above a preset low-glucose limit within 30 min may be the principal explanation for these results. Certainly, the clinical relevance of using SAP provided with low glucose suspend (LGS) or PLGM is high for selected categories of people with diabetes, including children/adolescents and people with high glucose variability or hypoglycemia awareness. Moreover, the highest decrease in TAR for both level 1 (>180 mg/dL) and level 2 (>250 mg/dL) was found in studies using rtCGM, compared with those using iCGM or SAP. The higher median baseline HbA1c values of patients included in the studies using CGM (7.9% [63 mmol/mol]) compared with those presented by patients of trials using iCGM (6.8% [51 mmol/mol]) and SAP (7.5% [57 mmol/mol]) may partly explain this finding. Targeting the reduction of the high glucose values while minimizing hypoglycemia could be another useful strategy that clinicians should address to expand the time in the target range of patients with diabetes.

The benefits exerted by CGM on parameters of glucose control were mainly evident in individuals with type 1 diabetes who showed better improvement in TIR and in both hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia. Data are less clear in people with type 2 diabetes, who represent the great majority of patients with diabetes. Potential benefits of CGM in this population include the possibility of providing additional information about glycemic control beyond HbA1c (44). Moreover, a significant improvement of both TAR and TBR was observed in patients using MDI therapy, supporting the validity of CGM regardless of the insulin delivery methods used (45). Furthermore, the greater improvement in mean HbA1c, TIR, and TAR was associated with studies in which the reason for using CGM was the improvement of glycemic control, suggesting that CGM represents a valid tool to manage diabetes in people with poor control of the disease. On the other hand, TBR was lower when the reason for CGM use was hypoglycemia awareness or reducing hypoglycemia, providing a further benefit for glycemic status even in patients with fair diabetes control.

The strengths of this analysis are the comprehensive systematic literature search, the inclusion of studies with different technical and clinical factors, the use of valuable emerging metrics of glycemic control as primary or secondary outcomes, and the conduction of preplanned subgroup analyses. Some limitations also have to be acknowledged. As none of the trials masked participants to the intervention, performance biases are high for all studies. Adequate assessment of detection bias was limited due to insufficient information relative to the blinding of outcome assessors or data analysts to the data assessment. Heterogeneity was high for most of the study outcomes; this result was partly explained in the subgroups analysis. Other reasons may include the heterogeneity of patients included in the trials, the background therapy, and the studies’ design. There was evidence of publication bias for one of the secondary outcomes (TBR level 2 hypoglycemia), which may limit the generalizability across clinical settings of the benefits of CGM on risk of hypoglycemia, giving more credit to the characteristics of each single trial. Moreover, all studies were sponsored by industry, had short duration, and used an open-label design.

In conclusion, this systematic review and meta-analysis is the first to show that CGM improves glycemic control of both patients with type 1 and patients with type 2 diabetes by expanding the TIR and reducing the time spent in hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia. Further studies with longer follow-up are needed to assess the effectiveness of CGM systems in the long-term and its relationship with diabetes complications.

Duality of Interest. M.I.M. has held lectures for Roche, Medtronic, Abbott, and LifeScan and received a consultancy fee from Roche. K.E. has held lectures for Roche, Medtronic, Abbott, LifeScan, and Theras and received a consultancy fee from Roche. No other potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

Author Contributions. M.I.M. conducted the literature search, data extraction, and data analysis and wrote the manuscript. S.S. and P.C. did the statistical analyses and contributed to the data analysis. A.M. conducted the literature search, data extraction, and data analysis. G.B., L.S., and M.L. contributed to the data analysis and to writing the manuscript. D.G. contributed to the data analysis and reviewed and edited the manuscript. K.E. conceived the study, contributed to data analysis, and reviewed and edited the manuscript. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript.

1.
American Diabetes Association
.
6. Glycemic targets: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes–2019
.
Diabetes Care
2019
;
42
(
Suppl. 1
):
S61
S70
2.
Edelman
SV
,
Argento
NB
,
Pettus
J
,
Hirsch
IB
.
Clinical implications of real-time and intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring
.
Diabetes Care
2018
;
41
:
2265
2274
3.
Petrie
JR
,
Peters
AL
,
Bergenstal
RM
,
Holl
RW
,
Fleming
GA
,
Heinemann
L
.
Improving the clinical value and utility of CGM systems: issues and recommendations: a joint statement of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the American Diabetes Association Diabetes Technology Working Group
.
Diabetes Care
2017
;
40
:
1614
1621
4.
Pickup
JC
,
Freeman
SC
,
Sutton
AJ
.
Glycaemic control in type 1 diabetes during real time continuous glucose monitoring compared with self monitoring of blood glucose: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials using individual patient data
.
BMJ
2011
;
343
:
d3805
5.
Yeh
HC
,
Brown
TT
,
Maruthur
N
, et al
.
Comparative effectiveness and safety of methods of insulin delivery and glucose monitoring for diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis
.
Ann Intern Med
2012
;
157
:
336
347
6.
Benkhadra
K
,
Alahdab
F
,
Tamhane
S
, et al
.
Real-time continuous glucose monitoring in type 1 diabetes: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis
.
Clin Endocrinol (Oxf)
2017
;
86
:
354
360
7.
Gandhi
GY
,
Kovalaske
M
,
Kudva
Y
, et al
.
Efficacy of continuous glucose monitoring in improving glycemic control and reducing hypoglycemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials
.
J Diabetes Sci Technol
2011
;
5
:
952
965
8.
Park
C
,
Le
QA
.
The effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring in patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review of literature and meta-analysis
.
Diabetes Technol Ther
2018
;
20
:
613
621
9.
Danne
T
,
Nimri
R
,
Battelino
T
, et al
.
International consensus on use of continuous glucose monitoring
.
Diabetes Care
2017
;
40
:
1631
1640
10.
American Diabetes Association
.
7. Diabetes technology: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes–2019
.
Diabetes Care
2019
;
42
(
Suppl. 1
):
S71
S80
11.
Liberati
A
,
Altman
DG
,
Tetzlaff
J
, et al
.
The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration
.
Ann Intern Med
2009
;
151
:
W65–W94
12.
Higgins
JPT
,
Green
S
.
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions [Internet], 2011. Version 5.1.0. Available from www.handbook.cochrane.org. Accessed 30 June 2019
13.
Higgins
JPT
,
Thomas
J
,
Chandler
J
, et al
. (Eds.).
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions [Internet], 2019. Version 6.0. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook. Accessed 30 June 2019
14.
Wan
X
,
Wang
W
,
Liu
J
,
Tong
T
.
Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range
.
BMC Med Res Methodol
2014
;
14
:
135
15.
Borenstein
M
,
Higgins
JP
,
Hedges
LV
,
Rothstein
HR
.
Basics of meta-analysis: I2 is not an absolute measure of heterogeneity
.
Res Synth Methods
2017
;
8
:
5
18
16.
Egger
M
,
Davey Smith
G
,
Schneider
M
,
Minder
C
.
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
.
BMJ
1997
;
315
:
629
634
17.
Duval
S
,
Tweedie
R
.
Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis
.
Biometrics
2000
;
56
:
455
463
18.
Tamborlane
WV
,
Beck
RW
,
Bode
BW
, et al.;
Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Continuous Glucose Monitoring Study Group
.
Continuous glucose monitoring and intensive treatment of type 1 diabetes
.
N Engl J Med
2008
;
359
:
1464
1476
19.
Battelino
T
,
Phillip
M
,
Bratina
N
,
Nimri
R
,
Oskarsson
P
,
Bolinder
J
.
Effect of continuous glucose monitoring on hypoglycemia in type 1 diabetes
.
Diabetes Care
2011
;
34
:
795
800
20.
Battelino
T
,
Conget
I
,
Olsen
B
, et al.;
SWITCH Study Group
.
The use and efficacy of continuous glucose monitoring in type 1 diabetes treated with insulin pump therapy: a randomised controlled trial
.
Diabetologia
2012
;
55
:
3155
3162
21.
Little
SA
,
Leelarathna
L
,
Walkinshaw
E
, et al
.
Recovery of hypoglycemia awareness in long-standing type 1 diabetes: a multicenter 2 × 2 factorial randomized controlled trial comparing insulin pump with multiple daily injections and continuous with conventional glucose self-monitoring (HypoCOMPaSS)
.
Diabetes Care
2014
;
37
:
2114
2122
22.
van Beers
CA
,
DeVries
JH
,
Kleijer
SJ
, et al
.
Continuous glucose monitoring for patients with type 1 diabetes and impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia (IN CONTROL): a randomised, open-label, crossover trial
.
Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol
2016
;
4
:
893
902
23.
Beck
RW
,
Riddlesworth
T
,
Ruedy
K
, et al.;
DIAMOND Study Group
.
Effect of continuous glucose monitoring on glycemic control in adults with type 1 diabetes using insulin injections: the DIAMOND randomized clinical trial
.
JAMA
2017
;
317
:
371
378
24.
Beck
RW
,
Riddlesworth
TD
,
Ruedy
K
, et al.;
DIAMOND Study Group
.
Continuous glucose monitoring versus usual care in patients with type 2 diabetes receiving multiple daily insulin injections: a randomized trial
.
Ann Intern Med
2017
;
167
:
365
374
25.
Feig
DS
,
Donovan
LE
,
Corcoy
R
, et al.;
CONCEPTT Collaborative Group
.
Continuous glucose monitoring in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes (CONCEPTT): a multicentre international randomised controlled trial
.
Lancet
2017
;
390
:
2347
2359
26.
Ruedy
KJ
,
Parkin
CG
,
Riddlesworth
TD
,
Graham
C
;
DIAMOND Study Group
.
Continuous glucose monitoring in older adults with type 1 and type 2 diabetes using multiple daily injections of insulin: results from the DIAMOND trial
.
J Diabetes Sci Technol
2017
;
11
:
1138
1146
27.
Heinemann
L
,
Freckmann
G
,
Ehrmann
D
, et al
.
Real-time continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 1 diabetes and impaired hypoglycaemia awareness or severe hypoglycaemia treated with multiple daily insulin injections (HypoDE): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial
.
Lancet
2018
;
391
:
1367
1377
28.
Bolinder
J
,
Antuna
R
,
Geelhoed-Duijvestijn
P
, et al
.
Novel glucose-sensing technology and hypoglycaemia in type 1 diabetes: a multicentre, non-masked, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2016;388:2254–2263
29.
Haak
T
,
Hanaire
H
,
Ajjan
R
,
Hermanns
N
,
Riveline
JP
,
Rayman
G
.
Flash glucose-sensing technology as a replacement for blood glucose monitoring for the management of insulin-treated type 2 diabetes: a multicenter, open-label randomized controlled trial
.
Diabetes Ther
2017
;
8
:
55
73
30.
Oskarsson
P
,
Antuna
R
,
Geelhoed-Duijvestijn
P
,
Krӧger
J
,
Weitgasser
R
,
Bolinder
J
.
Impact of flash glucose monitoring on hypoglycaemia in adults with type 1 diabetes managed with multiple daily injection therapy: a pre-specified subgroup analysis of the IMPACT randomised controlled trial
.
Diabetologia
2018
;
61
:
539
550
31.
O’Connell
MA
,
Donath
S
,
O’Neal
DN
, et al
.
Glycaemic impact of patient-led use of sensor-guided pump therapy in type 1 diabetes: a randomised controlled trial
.
Diabetologia
2009
;
52
:
1250
1257
32.
Bosi
E
,
Choudhary
P
,
de Valk
HW
, et al.;
SMILE Study Group
.
Efficacy and safety of suspend-before-low insulin pump technology in hypoglycaemia-prone adults with type 1 diabetes (SMILE): an open-label randomised controlled trial
.
Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol
2019
;
7
:
462
472
33.
Laiteerapong
N
,
Ham
SA
,
Gao
Y
, et al
.
The legacy effect in type 2 diabetes: impact of early glycemic control on future complications (the Diabetes & Aging Study)
.
Diabetes Care
2019
;
42
:
416
426
34.
Stratton
IM
,
Adler
AI
,
Neil
HAW
, et al
.
Association of glycaemia with macrovascular and microvascular complications of type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 35): prospective observational study
.
BMJ
2000
;
321
:
405
412
35.
Nathan
DM
,
Genuth
S
,
Lachin
J
, et al.;
Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group
.
The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus
.
N Engl J Med
1993
;
329
:
977
986
36.
Battelino
T
,
Danne
T
,
Bergenstal
RM
, et al
.
Clinical targets for continuous glucose monitoring data interpretation: recommendations from the International Consensus on Time in Range
.
Diabetes Care
2019
;
42
:
1593
1603
37.
Lu
J
,
Ma
X
,
Zhou
J
, et al
.
Association of time in range, as assessed by continuous glucose monitoring, with diabetic retinopathy in type 2 diabetes
.
Diabetes Care
2018
;
41
:
2370
2376
38.
Beck
RW
,
Bergenstal
RM
,
Riddlesworth
TD
, et al
.
Validation of time in range as an outcome measure for diabetes clinical trials
.
Diabetes Care
2019
;
42
:
400
405
39.
Beck
RW
,
Bergenstal
RM
,
Cheng
P
, et al
.
The relationships between time in range, hyperglycemia metrics, and HbA1c
.
J Diabetes Sci Technol
2019
;
13
:
614
626
40.
Vigersky
RA
,
McMahon
C
.
The relationship of hemoglobin A1C to time-in-range in patients with diabetes
.
Diabetes Technol Ther
2019
;
21
:
81
85
41.
Battelino
T
,
Nimri
R
,
Dovc
K
,
Phillip
M
,
Bratina
N
.
Prevention of hypoglycemia with predictive low glucose insulin suspension in children with type 1 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial
.
Diabetes Care
2017
;
40
:
764
770
42.
Abraham
MB
,
Nicholas
JA
,
Smith
GJ
, et al.;
PLGM Study Group
.
Reduction in hypoglycemia with the predictive low-glucose management system: a long-term randomized controlled trial in adolescents with type 1 diabetes
.
Diabetes Care
2018
;
41
:
303
310
43.
Forlenza
GP
,
Li
Z
,
Buckingham
BA
, et al
.
Predictive low-glucose Suspend reduces hypoglycemia in adults, adolescents, and children with type 1 diabetes in an at-home randomized crossover study: results of the PROLOG trial
.
Diabetes Care
2018
;
41
:
2155
2161
44.
Carlson
AL
,
Mullen
DM
,
Bergenstal
RM
.
Clinical use of continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 2 diabetes
.
Diabetes Technol Ther
2017
;
19
:
S4
S11
45.
Maiorino
MI
,
Petrizzo
M
,
Bellastella
G
,
Esposito
K
.
Continuous glucose monitoring for patients with type 1 diabetes on multiple daily injections of insulin: pros and cons
.
Endocrine
2018
;
59
:
62
65
Readers may use this article as long as the work is properly cited, the use is educational and not for profit, and the work is not altered. More information is available at https://www.diabetesjournals.org/content/license.

Supplementary data