The Study
611-P: Effect of Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) vs. Blood Glucose Monitoring (BGM) during a Nutrition Intervention on Time in Range (TIR)
This study compared two ways of checking blood sugar — one with a fancy device that shows numbers all day (CGM) and one with finger pricks (BGM). Both groups ate the same diet, and both got better at keeping blood sugar in range. But the people with the fancy device were more likely to hit the super-strict goal. We can't say for sure the device caused it, because they knew which one they were using.
Analysis score
Maximum 90 for a randomized controlled trial.
Where the score came from
People with type 2 diabetes ate a strict low-carb diet and got remote care. Some used a glucose sensor that checks sugar all day, others checked with finger pricks.
Where does this study sit?
Reviews of RCTs (Meta-analyses)
Max 100Randomized Trials
Max 90Reviews of Cohort Studies
Max 85Cohort Studies
Max 72Reviews of Case-Control Studies
Max 63Case-Control Studies
Max 58Cross-Sectional & Case Series
Max 50Expert Opinion
Max 566 / 100
Quality score
Participants are randomly assigned to treatment or control groups, minimizing bias. The gold standard for testing whether an intervention causes an effect.
Key takeaways
Summary
Based on the study abstract and findings.
- 1Yes — both methods work well, but the sensor helps you hit tighter targets without increasing low blood sugar risk.
- 2Both groups improved their blood sugar control: sensor group went up 28%, finger prick group up 23%.
- 3Neither had low blood sugar problems.
- 4The sensor group was more likely to hit super-strict goals.
Score breakdown, methodology, conflicts of interest, evidence analysis & raw study data
Publication
Journal
Diabetes
Year
2024
Authors
H. Willis, S. Asche, Amy L. McKenzie, Rebecca N Adams, Shannon Krizka, C. Roberts, Brittanie M. Volk, Shaminie J. Athinarayanan, Alison R. Zoller, R. Bergenstal
Related Content
Claims (6)
Consuming carbohydrates raises blood sugar, which can cause sugars to attach to proteins in cells, triggering widespread inflammation in the body.
For adults with type 2 diabetes, using a continuous glucose monitor does not lead to better blood sugar control than using traditional blood glucose testing, when both groups are following a ketogenic diet and receiving remote care.
For adults with type 2 diabetes, following a ketogenic diet under medical supervision along with remote care helps maintain blood sugar levels within a healthy range more consistently, whether they use a continuous glucose monitor or traditional fingerstick testing.
For adults with type 2 diabetes on a medically supervised ketogenic diet, using either continuous glucose monitoring or traditional blood glucose monitoring is linked to measurable improvements in the amount of time their blood sugar stays within a healthy range, with continuous monitoring showing a slightly larger average improvement over three months.
In adults with type 2 diabetes on a ketogenic diet managed remotely, using continuous glucose monitoring does not change overall time spent in the target glucose range compared to traditional blood glucose testing, but it is associated with a higher chance of meeting stricter glucose targets, such as spending more than 70% of the time in range and less than 4% of the time below 70 mg/dL.
Among adults with type 2 diabetes on a ketogenic diet, the number of low blood sugar events does not change based on whether they use a continuous glucose monitor or traditional fingerstick testing.
Not medical advice. For informational purposes only. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional before making health decisions.