ArticleDiabetes care2025
Continuous Glucose Monitoring Metrics Predict All-Cause Mortality in Diabetes: A Real-world Long-term Study.
Article in Diabetes care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of the Continuous Glucose Monitoring Profiles of Four Glucose-Lowering Medications in the GRADE Randomized Trial.Diabetes care · 2026Trial
- Implementing a RPM-enabled transitional care pathway for adults with poorly controlled diabetes: a quality improvement initiative.BMJ open quality · 2026Article
- Serum 1,5-Anhydroglucitol Identifies Residual Mortality Risk Beyond Time in Range in Type 2 Diabetes: A Cohort Study.Journal of diabetes · 2026Article
- Associations Between Sleep Quality and Continuous Glucose Monitoring-Derived Metrics in Individuals With Type 2 Diabetes.Journal of sleep research · 2026Article
- Ultra-processed foods and continuous glucose monitoring metrics in adults with type 2 diabetes.Diabetes research and clinical practice · 2026Article
- Advances in continuous glucose monitoring and their impact on glycemic control in diabetes.Journal of diabetes investigation · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveInvestigate the association between continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-derived glucose metrics and all-cause mortality in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes (T1D or T2D). RESEARCH DESIGN AND
methodsWe analyzed data from 2,752 adults (≥21 years old) with diabetes (65% T2D) from the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System who received Dexcom CGM between 2015 and 2020. All participants had ≥10 days of CGM data over landmark (LM) periods (14 days, 3 months, and 6 months) merged with electronic health records. All-cause mortality was assessed over 5 years from CGM initiation. Cox models evaluated associations between mortality and CGM metrics: mean glucose (MG, mg/dL), time in range (TIR, %), time above range (TAR, %), coefficient of variation (CV), and glycemic risk index (GRI, %).
resultsMean age at CGM initiation was 64 years, and median CGM use was nearly 3 years. There were 407 deaths. In separate multivariable Cox models (adjusting for mortality-related variables), higher MG, TAR, CV, and GRI and lower TIR during the 6-month LM were associated with 5-year mortality (hazard ratios: MG 1.18, TAR 1.20, GRI 1.23, CV 1.18, and TIR 0.83; all P ≤ 0.01) and those associations remained significant after adjusting for LM HbA1c. Results were similar with shorter CGM LM observation windows. The association between CV and mortality was independent of other CGM metrics and appeared strongest in those with lower HbA1c levels.
conclusionsCGM-derived metrics were associated with all-cause mortality in patients with diabetes and may better capture long-term risk associated with glucose fluctuations and periods of hypo- and hyperglycemia than 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.