ReviewDiabetes, obesity & metabolism2025
Time in range-A new gold standard in type 2 diabetes research?
Review 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 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Evidence-based recommendations for the use of continuous glucose monitoring in type 2 diabetes: the Italian guidelines.Acta diabetologica · 2026Pooled it
- Impact of iGlarLixi on Glycaemic Control Depth and Variability in Asian Pacific People With Type 2 Diabetes: A Post Hoc Analysis of LixiLan-O-AP and LixiLan-L-CN.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2026Trial
- Implementing a RPM-enabled transitional care pathway for adults with poorly controlled diabetes: a quality improvement initiative.BMJ open quality · 2026Article
- Applications of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Cognitive Research in Diabetes: a Scoping Review.Current diabetes reports · 2026Article
- Patterns of One-Year Change in HbA1c and Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) Metrics in Older Adults with Type 2 Diabetes.Clinical chemistry · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis comparing real-time continuous glucose monitoring with self-monitoring of blood glucose for patients with type 2 diabetes treated with insulin in Japan.Journal of diabetes investigation · 2026Article
- Flash Glucose Monitoring System Enhances Glycemic Control and Metabolic Health in People with Type 2 Diabetes on GLP-1RA-Based Therapy: Real-World Evidence.Advances in therapy · 2026Article
- In-Hospital Glycemic Variability and Mean Blood Glucose as Risk Markers for Long-Term Mortality in Patients with Diabetes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Time in range-A new gold standard in type 2 diabetes research?Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2025Review
- Bridging the digital divide: student-led literacy initiatives in diabetes management.Frontiers in clinical diabetes and healthcare · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) is currently the gold standard outcome measure for type 2 diabetes trials. Time in range is a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) metric defined as the proportion of time in euglycemia (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) and may be valuable not only in type 1 diabetes clinical trials but also as an endpoint in type 2 diabetes trials. This narrative review aimed to assess the relative merits of time in range versus HbA1c as outcome measures for type 2 diabetes studies. It reviews the strengths and limitations of time in range as an outcome measure and evaluates studies in type 2 diabetes that have used time in range as a primary or secondary outcome measure. A literature search was conducted on PubMed and MEDLINE databases using key terms "time in range" AND "diabetes" OR "type 2 diabetes mellitus". Further evidence was obtained from relevant references of retrieved articles. Literature search identified 247 papers, of which 110 were included in this review. These included a broad range of articles, including 45 randomized trials using time in range as an outcome measure in patients with type 2 diabetes, as well as papers validating time in range. Time in range provides valuable and clinically relevant information and should be used as an important endpoint in type 2 diabetes in clinical trial settings, in conjunction with HbA1c.
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.