ArticleDiabetes, obesity & metabolism2025
Long-term health benefit and economic return of time in range (TIR) improvement in individuals with type 2 diabetes.
Article in Diabetes, obesity & metabolism, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Metabolic and vascular outcomes after transition to the MiniMed 780G system in adults ≥65 years with type 1 diabetes: a randomised, single-centre study.Diabetologia · 2026Trial
- Role of automated insulin delivery in managing insulin-treated outpatients with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.World journal of diabetes · 2025Article
- Medical laboratory data-based models: opportunities, obstacles, and solutions.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTime in range (TIR) is an important metric to measure variability of blood glucose levels. The aim is to quantify the long-term health benefits and economic return associated with improved TIR for individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D).
methodA Markov model with three states (T2D, T2D with cardiovascular disease (CVD) and death) estimated 20-year medical costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) gained and CVD risk under four TIR scenarios: >85%, 71%-85%, 51%-70% and ≤50%. The T2D population was identified using the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, and model parameters were sourced from literature. Costs were estimated from a healthcare sector perspective and standardized to 2021 US dollars. Cost ceilings were determined using three willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds: $100 000/QALY, $50 000/QALY and $0/QALY (cost-saving).
resultsCompared to TIR <50%, improving TIR to 51%-70% resulted in a 0.79 QALY increase and 4.91% CVD risk reduction; to 71%-85%, a 0.95 QALY increase and 6.24% CVD risk reduction; to >85%, a 1.18 QALY increase and 8.75% CVD risk reduction. To be cost-effective at $100 000/QALY, annual costs for TIR improvements from <50% to 51%-70%, 71%-85% and >85% should be <$1148, $4200 and $7252, respectively. To be cost-saving, these costs should be <$612, $2816 and $5021.
conclusionImproving TIR yields significant health benefits. We calculated feasible medical cost allocations for TIR improvements, informing the implementation of interventions like continuous glucose monitoring devices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.