ReviewJournal of diabetes science and technology2025
Continuous Glucose Monitoring to Guide Lifestyle Choices With a Focus on Nutrition in the Management of Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Interpreting Continuous Glucose Monitoring Through Metabolic Physiology: A Framework for Precision Nutrition in Type 2 Diabetes.Nutrients · 2026Review
- Perception of dentist as a patient towards restorative dental treatment; A caries risk assessment study-Case report.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2026Article
- Lifestyle intervention outcomes in T2DM and the added value of CGM: 6-month results from the Polish cohort of the C4D study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Bridging the Continuous Glucose Monitoring decision gap: from glycaemic variability data to actionable stability in diabetes care.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to synthesize evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) to guide lifestyle choices, particularly nutrition, in the management of T2D.
methodsPubMed and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched from inception to June 6, 2025. Randomized controlled trials were included if their intervention involved the use of a CGM device and education or feedback intended to modify nutrition choices, either as part of a nutrition intervention or a multicomponent lifestyle intervention. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed, and certainty of evidence was rated in alignment with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
resultsA total of 21 RCTs involving 2734 adults in groups of interest were included, with 20 RCTs eligible for meta-analysis. Results from meta-analysis showed statistically significant improvements in HbA1c (MD: -0.46%, 95% CI: -0.71, -0.22), time in range (TIR) 70-180 mg/dL (MD: 7.18%, 95% CI: 2.77, 11.58), time above range (TAR) >180 mg/dL (MD: -7.32%, 95% CI: -12.98, -1.66), fasting glucose (MD: -7.86 mg/dL, 95% CI: -15.06, -0.65), body weight (MD: -2.06 kg, 95% CI: -3.74, -0.38), with moderate certainty of evidence, and for mean CGM glucose (MD: -11.57 mg/dL, 95% CI: -22.58, -0.56), and standard deviation (SD) glucose (MD: -4.06 mg/dL, 95% CI: -6.54, -1.58), with low certainty of evidence. No statistically significant differences were found for other outcomes, typically with low certainty of evidence.
conclusionsFindings from this systematic review and meta-analysis support the use of CGM as a tool to guide lifestyle choices with a focus on nutrition in the management of T2D, with significant benefits related to glycemia and body weight.
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.