Skip to main content
. 2026 Feb 16;91(1):86. doi: 10.1007/s12020-025-04509-z

Table 3.

Comparison of CGM data between the two groups of patients after the intervention

Parameters App group (n = 43) Control group (n = 43) P
MG (mmol/L) 9.01 (8.04, 9.70) 10.45 (8.78, 12.27) 0.003
SD (mmol/L) 3.00 (2.29, 3.46) 3.48 (2.84, 4.04) 0.011
CV (%) 0.34 (0.28, 0.37) 0.33 (0.27, 0.38) 0.757
MAGE (mmol/L) 7.28 (5.80, 8.39) 7.98 (6.82, 9.44) 0.018
MODD (mmol/L) 2.42 (1.91, 2.76) 2.85 (2.13, 3.47) 0.018
LAGE (mmol/L) 14.20 (12.10, 17.80) 16.10 (13.15, 18.85) 0.029
TIR (%) 64.0 (51.0, 73.0) 47.0 (29.5, 67.0) 0.001
TAR (%) 35.0 (23.0, 47.0) 52.0 (29.5, 70.0) 0.003
TBR (%) 1.0 (0, 2.0) 0 (0, 2.5) 0.469
GMI (%) 7.81 (7.09, 8.59) 7.19 (6.77, 7.49) 0.003
GRI 35.84 (28.44, 52.60) 62.98 (39.50, 83.07) 0.000

MG Mean glucose, CV coefficient of variation, SD standard deviation, MAGE mean amplitude of glucose excursions, MODD mean of daily difference, LAGE largest amplitude of glycemic excursion, Min-GM minimum glucose, Max-G maximum glucose, TIR time in range, TAR time above range, TBR time below range, GMI glucose management index, GRI glycemic risk index