Evidence Hub

Continuous glucose monitoring in type 2 diabetes: Evidence for glycaemic metrics and patient-reported outcomes

Pal AW, Chong WL, Huri HZ, Ratnasingam J

Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association, 2026

Abstract

Aims: In adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D), continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) provides insights beyond HbA1c. A comprehensive understanding of clinical benefits and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) associated with CGM is needed to inform its integration into routine care.

Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library and CINAHL from inception to June 2025 to identify randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies including quasi-experimental and observational designs. Outcomes of interest included glycaemic measures (HbA1c, time in range, hypoglycaemia, glycaemic variability) and PROs. Given the heterogeneity in study design and outcome reporting, findings were synthesised narratively.

Results: Thirty studies (N ≈ 3275) were included. CGM use was associated with improvement in HbA1c, particularly among insulin-treated individuals and those with higher baseline HbA1c. CGM use also increased time in range by approximately 9-15 percentage points (1.5-3.6 h/day) and was generally associated with reduced hypoglycaemia risk and glycaemic variability, although effects on hypoglycaemia were not uniform. In contrast, diabetes-specific PROs, including treatment satisfaction and diabetes-related distress, showed more consistent improvement, whereas changes in overall quality-of-life measures were less pronounced.

Conclusions: CGM use was associated with clinically meaningful improvements in glycaemic metrics and PROs in adults…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free