Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39571106›Full record

Trial reportDiabetes care2025

Results From a Randomized Trial of Intensive Glucose Management Using CGM Versus Usual Care in Hospitalized Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: The TIGHT Study.

Irl B Hirsch, Boris Draznin, John B Buse, Dan Raghinaru, Charles Spanbauer, Guillermo E Umpierrez, Jagdeesh Ullal, Morgan S Jones, Cecilia C Low Wang, Elias K Spanakis and 37 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Diabetes care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Inpatient Use of Automated Insulin Delivery Systems.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2026
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

47 authors.

Irl B HirschUniversity of Washington, Seattle, WA.ORCID 0000-0003-1675-8417
Boris DrazninUniversity of Colorado, Aurora, CO.
John B BuseThe University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC.
Dan RaghinaruJaeb Center for Health Research, Tampa, FL.
Charles SpanbauerJaeb Center for Health Research, Tampa, FL.
Guillermo E UmpierrezEmory University, Atlanta, GA.
Jagdeesh UllalUniversity of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
Morgan S JonesThe University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC.
Cecilia C Low WangUniversity of Colorado, Aurora, CO.
Elias K SpanakisUniversity of Maryland, Baltimore, MD.
Jing H ChaoUniversity of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Judy SibayanJaeb Center for Health Research, Tampa, FL.
Craig KollmanJaeb Center for Health Research, Tampa, FL.
Zohyra E ZabalaEmory University, Atlanta, GA.
Bobak MoazzamiEmory University, Atlanta, GA.
Shari L ReynoldsUniversity of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
Wanda FerraraUniversity of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
Karla FulghumThe University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC.
Alex KassThe University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC.
Chase ArmstrongThe University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC.
Faryal GilaniThe University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC.
Stacey SeggelkeUniversity of Colorado, Aurora, CO.
Jade ChurchillBaltimore Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Baltimore, MD.
Joseph O MonyeUniversity of Maryland, Baltimore, MD.
Monica Y ChoeBaltimore Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Baltimore, MD.
William ScottBaltimore Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Baltimore, MD.
Jesica D BaranUniversity of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Rajlaxmi BaisUniversity of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Dori KhakpourUniversity of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Francisco J PasquelEmory University, Atlanta, GA.ORCID 0000-0002-3845-6703
Georgia M DavisEmory University, Atlanta, GA.
Priyathama VellankiEmory University, Atlanta, GA.
Erin E KershawUniversity of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
Nikola GligorijevicUniversity of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
April GoleyThe University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC.
Avni GargThe University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC.
Bonnie AlexanderThe University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC.
Brooke C MatsonThe University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC.
Jamie DinerThe University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC.
Klara R KleinThe University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC.ORCID 0000-0002-5894-9054
Whitney B AdairUniversity of Colorado, Aurora, CO.
Palak ChoksiUniversity of Colorado, Aurora, CO.
Michelle HuangUniversity of Colorado, Aurora, CO.
Jennifer VinhUniversity of Colorado, Aurora, CO.
Lakshmi G SinghBaltimore Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Baltimore, MD.
Roy W BeckJaeb Center for Health Research, Tampa, FL.ORCID 0000-0002-5194-8446
TIGHT RCT Study Group

Funding

Implementing a Maternal health and PRegnancy Outcomes Vision for Everyone (IMPROVE)UL1TR002378 · NCATS · EMORY UNIVERSITY · PI Andres J Garcia, Elizabeth O. Ofili · 2017 to 2026
$92.1M
North Carolina Translational and Clinical Sciences Institute (NC TraCS)UM1TR004406 · NCATS · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI NICHOLAS J SHAHEEN · 2023 to 2026
$37.5M
Translational Research Core - Engagement and Behavior ChangeP30DK111024 · NIDDK · EMORY UNIVERSITY · PI Mohammed Kumail Ali · 2016 to 2026
$13.4M
Pilot & Feasibility ProgramP30DK124723 · NIDDK · WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI P Darrell Neufer · 2020 to 2026
$11.0M
CSRD VA I01 CX001825Dexcom IncNCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002378NCATS NIH HHS UM1 TR004406NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK111024NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK124723
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate whether continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) could assist providers in intensifying glycemic management in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND

methodsAt six academic hospitals, adults with type 2 diabetes hospitalized in a non-intensive care setting were randomly assigned to either standard therapy with glucose target 140-180 mg/dL (standard group) or intensive therapy with glucose target 90-130 mg/dL guided by CGM (intensive group). The primary outcome was mean glucose measured with CGM (blinded in standard group), and the key secondary outcome was CGM glucose <54 mg/dL.

resultsFor the 110 participants included in the primary analysis, mean ± SD age was 61 ± 12 years and mean HbA1c was 8.9 ± 2.3% (73.8 ± 1.6 mmol/mol). During the study, CGM-measured mean glucose was 170 mg/dL for the intensive group (n = 60) vs. 175 mg/dL for the standard group (n = 50; risk-adjusted difference -7 mg/dL, 95% CI -19 to 5; P = 0.25). Only 7% of the intensive group achieved the mean glucose target range of 90-130 mg/dL. CGM readings <54 mg/dL were infrequent (0.2% for intensive and 0.4% for standard; adjusted treatment group difference -0.1%, 95% CI -0.6 to 0.3). One severe hypoglycemia event occurred in the standard group.

conclusionsThe study's glucose management approach using CGM did not improve glucose levels compared with standard glucose management in the non-intensive care unit hospital setting. A glucose target of 90-130 mg/dL may not be realistic in the current environment of insulin management in the hospital.

Indexed as

Blood GlucoseDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2AgedBlood Glucose Self-MonitoringFemaleGlycated HemoglobinGlycemic ControlHospitalizationHumansHypoglycemic AgentsMaleMiddle AgedBlood GlucoseGlycated HemoglobinHypoglycemic Agents

Identifiers

PMID39571106
PMCPMC12328254

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.