Skip to main content
. 2023 Jan 12;47(1):27–41. doi: 10.4093/dmj.2022.0271

Table 3.

Randomized controlled studies providing evidence of glycemic efficacy of isCGM

Study Study design Study population Diabetes type Insulin regimen Baseline glycemic status (CGM vs. SMBG) Primary outcomes Results (CGM vs. SMBG)
Bolinder et al. (2016) [28] Parallel, 6 months 241 adults T1DM CSII, MDI HbA1c ≤7.5% Change in time in hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dL) between baseline and 6 months Adjusted between-group differences: −1.24 hour (P<0.001)
Mean HbA1c: 6.7% vs. 6.7% 3.38–2.03 hours vs. 3.44–3.27 hours
Oskarsson et al. (2018) [29] Parallel, 6 months 167 adults T1DM MDI HbA1c ≤7.5% Change in time in hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dL) between baseline and 6 months Adjusted between-group differences: −1.65 hour (P<0.001)
Mean HbA1c: 6.7% vs. 6.7% 3.44–1.86 hours vs. 3.73–3.66 hours
Haak et al. (2017) [27] Parallel, 24 weeks 224 adults T2DM CSII, MDI HbA1c 7.5%–12.0% Difference in HbA1c at 6 months Adjusted between-group differences: −0.29% (P=0.8222)
Mean HbA1c: 8.7% vs. 8.9% 8.37% vs. 8.34%

isCGM, intermittent scanning continuous glucose monitoring; SMBG, self-monitoring blood glucose monitoring; T1DM, type 1 diabetes mellitus; CSII, continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion; MDI, multiple daily insulin injection; HbA1c, glycosylated hemoglobin; T2DM, type 2 diabetes mellitus.