Evidence mapPaperPMID 40102012Full record

Trial reportDiabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association2025

Extended use of real-time continuous glucose monitoring in adults with insulin-requiring type 2 diabetes: Results from the first 26 weeks of the 2GO-CGM trial.

Claire S Lever, Jonathan A Williman, Alisa Boucsein, Antony Watson, Rachael S Sampson, Oscar T Sergel-Stringer, Celeste Keesing, Benjamin J Wheeler, Martin I de Bock, Ryan G Paul

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

10 authors.

Claire S LeverTe Huataki Waiora, School of Health, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.
Jonathan A WillimanBiostatistics and Computation Biology Unit, University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Alisa BoucseinDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Dunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Antony WatsonDepartment of Paediatrics, University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Rachael S SampsonWaikato Regional Diabetes Service, Te Whatu Ora Health New Zealand Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.
Oscar T Sergel-StringerDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Dunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4431-5533
Celeste KeesingWaikato Regional Diabetes Service, Te Whatu Ora Health New Zealand Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.
Benjamin J WheelerDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Dunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Martin I de BockDepartment of Paediatrics, University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Ryan G PaulTe Huataki Waiora, School of Health, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.

Funding

Dexcom
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsThe first 26 weeks of the 2GO-CGM trial assessed the efficacy and safety of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) use within a supported specialist model of care in a cohort of community-based adults with insulin-requiring type 2 diabetes in New Zealand.

methodsA 26-week randomised one-way crossover 'waitlist-controlled' trial comparing rtCGM (Dexcom G6) with self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG). All participants completed 2 weeks of SMBG before being randomised to 12 weeks (phase 1) use of SMBG followed by 12 weeks (phase 2) use of rtCGM (Group A) or 24 weeks of rtCGM (Group B). A time-adjusted within

resultsSixty-seven participants were randomised to Group A or B, and all were included in the analysis (53% indigenous Māori, 57% female, median age 53 [range 16-69] years). Baseline-adjusted mean time in range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) was 15% (95% CI 10-20; p = <0.001) higher with rtCGM use versus SMBG use. There was no evidence of a difference in Hba1c between rtCGM and SMBG use (-3.4 mmol/mol [0.31%], 95% CI -9.4 to 2.7 mmol/mol [-0.86 to 0.24%], p = 0.27). One participant withdrew in phase 2 due to unmanageable skin reactions to the CGM device. There were no severe hypoglycaemia or ketoacidosis events in either group during the study.

conclusionsUse of rtCGM demonstrates safe and sustained glycaemic improvement in rtCGM use with insulin-requiring type 2 diabetes during the first 26 weeks of the 2GO-CGM study.

Indexed as

Blood GlucoseBlood Glucose Self-MonitoringDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Hypoglycemic AgentsInsulinAdolescentAdultAgedContinuous Glucose MonitoringCross-Over StudiesFemaleGlycated HemoglobinHumansHypoglycemiaMaleMiddle AgedBlood GlucoseGlycated HemoglobinHypoglycemic AgentsInsulincontinuous glucose monitoringglycaemic outcomesinsulininsulin titrationreal‐time continuous glucose monitoringtype 2 diabetes

Identifiers

PMID40102012
PMCPMC12006558

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.