Time in range (TIR): what it is, which targets guidelines set and how to read it on your glucose sensor

For decades, the standard way to know how someone with diabetes was doing was a single number: glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), which summarises average glucose over the past few months. Glucose sensors have changed that picture. Today it is common to have hundreds of readings a day, and with them has come a metric that international guidelines now use alongside HbA1c to assess glucose management: time in range, or TIR ^[1].

Time in range answers a very intuitive question: how much of the day does your glucose spend within a set of target values? Unlike an average, it shows at the same time how long you spend above and below that range, and it reflects what has happened over the last few weeks rather than the last few months ^[2].

In this guide you will see what TIR measures and the metrics that come with it, which targets international consensus statements recommend depending on each person's age and situation, how it relates to HbA1c, what research says about its link with diabetes complications and, above all, how to read it in everyday life without becoming obsessed with it. Specific targets are always agreed individually with your healthcare team ^[2].

What time in range is and why it matters

A simple definition

Time in range is the percentage of readings, and therefore of time, during which sensor glucose stays between 70 and 180 mg/dL (3.9–10.0 mmol/L) ^[3]. If your TIR is 70%, it means that roughly 17 out of every 24 hours you have been within that interval, neither high nor low ^[4].

The 70–180 mg/dL range is not new. The international consensus on the use of continuous glucose monitoring published in 2017 already proposed it as the default target range, and suggested the narrower 70–140 mg/dL (3.9–7.8 mmol/L) interval as a secondary range ^[5]. In 2019, the international consensus on time in range set the target percentages for each metric ^[3].

What it adds to HbA1c

HbA1c remains a key reference, because there is a lot of evidence that it can be used to predict and help prevent diabetes complications ^[4]. But it has limitations: it is an average of roughly three months and says nothing about the highs and lows behind it.

The ADA and EASD consensus report on type 1 diabetes in adults considers that GMI and TIR may be more useful than HbA1c for clinical management, because they reflect more recent glucose levels and provide more detailed information ^[2]. Along the same lines, the 2026 American Diabetes Association (ADA) Standards of Care state that glycaemic status can be assessed with HbA1c, with sensor metrics (time in range, above range and below range) or with both ^[1].

Why the lower limit is 70 mg/dL

The lower limit of the range matches the hypoglycaemia threshold. The ADA considers a measured glucose below 70 mg/dL clinically important even when it causes no symptoms ^[1]. The upper limit of 180 mg/dL, in turn, marks the point from which time in hyperglycaemia is counted ^[3].

The metrics that come with time in range

TIR is not interpreted on its own. Standardised sensor reports present it together with a small set of metrics that, taken together, describe glucose management far more completely ^[3].

Time below range

Time below range (TBR) is divided into two levels ^[3]:

• Level 1: between 54 and 69 mg/dL (3.0–3.8 mmol/L).
• Level 2: below 54 mg/dL (3.0 mmol/L).

The distinction is not arbitrary. According to the ADA, below 54 mg/dL neuroglycopenic symptoms begin to appear, and this level requires immediate action to resolve the hypoglycaemia ^[1]. There is also a level 3, defined not by a number but by its severity: an event with altered mental or physical functioning that needs another person's help to recover, whatever the glucose level ^[1]. The 2017 consensus proposed that, to count a level 2 hypoglycaemic event in sensor data, glucose must stay below 54 mg/dL for at least 15 minutes ^[5].

Time above range

Time above range (TAR) also has two levels: from 181 to 250 mg/dL (10.1–13.9 mmol/L; level 1) and above 250 mg/dL (level 2) ^[3]. In the DCCT data, from people with type 1 diabetes, most of the time out of range was hyperglycaemia: a median of 84% of out-of-range values were above 180 mg/dL ^[6].

Mean glucose, GMI and coefficient of variation

Besides the times, the report shows mean glucose and two derived indicators:

• GMI (glucose management indicator): an estimate of HbA1c calculated from mean sensor glucose with the formula GMI (%) = 3.31 + 0.02392 × mean glucose in mg/dL ^[7]. For example, a mean glucose of 150 mg/dL (8.3 mmol/L) corresponds to a GMI of 6.9%, and one of 175 mg/dL (9.7 mmol/L) to 7.5% ^[7].
• Coefficient of variation (CV): measures how much glucose fluctuates relative to its mean. The 2017 consensus proposed it as the primary measure of variability and considered glucose stable with a CV below 36% ^[5]. The target in the 2019 consensus and the ADA is a CV of 36% or lower ^{[3, 1]}.

The ambulatory glucose profile (AGP)

The ambulatory glucose profile (AGP) is the standard visual report recommended by the consensus statements ^{[3, 5]}. It overlays all recorded days on a single 24-hour graph, as if they happened on one "typical day" starting and ending at midnight ^[8]. The central line is the median; around it, one band covers the middle 50% of values (25th to 75th percentiles) and another, wider band spans the 10th to 90th percentiles ^[8].

Its aim is to summarise the information in a single-page document that works in clinic and for explaining it to the person with diabetes ^[8]. The ADA recommends that all sensors and insulin devices provide standardised reports of at least one page ^[9].

Metric	What it measures	Reference range
Time in range (TIR)	% of time between 70 and 180 mg/dL	General target: more than 70%
Time below range, level 1	% of time between 54 and 69 mg/dL	Together with level 2, less than 4%
Time below range, level 2	% of time below 54 mg/dL	Less than 1%
Time above range, level 1	% of time between 181 and 250 mg/dL	Together with level 2, less than 25%
Time above range, level 2	% of time above 250 mg/dL	Less than 5%
Coefficient of variation	Glucose fluctuation relative to its mean	36% or lower
GMI	HbA1c estimated from mean glucose	Assessed alongside laboratory HbA1c

Which targets international guidelines recommend

Adults with type 1 and type 2 diabetes

For most adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, the 2019 international consensus proposes these targets ^[3]:

Metric	Target	Approximate time per day
Between 70 and 180 mg/dL	More than 70%	More than 16 h 48 min
Below 70 mg/dL	Less than 4%	Less than 1 h
Below 54 mg/dL	Less than 1%	Less than 15 min
Above 180 mg/dL	Less than 25%	Less than 6 h
Above 250 mg/dL	Less than 5%	Less than 1 h 12 min

The 2026 ADA Standards of Care include these same targets: a TIR above 70% is appropriate for many non-pregnant adults, and spending less than 4% of the time below 70 mg/dL and less than 1% below 54 mg/dL is recommended to prevent hypoglycaemia ^[1]. The joint consensus report of the ADA and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) on type 1 diabetes in adults adopts the same figures ^[2].

There are nuances. For example, in people under 25 whose HbA1c target is 7.5%, the consensus suggests setting a TIR target of around 60% ^[3]. And all targets should be individualised and agreed with the person with diabetes ^[2].

Older adults or people at high risk of hypoglycaemia

For older adults or people at high risk, the consensus lowers the TIR target to more than 50% (more than 12 hours a day) and tightens the hypoglycaemia target: less than 1% of the time below 70 mg/dL, to put more emphasis on avoiding it ^[3]. The ADA recommends that older adults spend less than 1% of the time below 70 mg/dL and, for those with complex or intermediate health, a TIR above 50% and less than 10% of the time above 250 mg/dL ^[1]. The consensus itself acknowledges that specific TIR data for this group are lacking ^[3].

Children and adolescents

The International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes (ISPAD) applies the same sensor targets to children and adolescents as to adults, measured over a 14-day period: more than 70% between 70 and 180 mg/dL, less than 4% below 70, less than 1% below 54, less than 25% above 180 and less than 5% above 250 mg/dL ^[10]. The 2024 guideline keeps these targets and notes that a TIR above 80% may be needed to reach an HbA1c of 6.5% or lower ^[11]. ISPAD also points out that less stringent targets are only advisable when meeting them harms the overall wellbeing of the person or their carers ^[10].

Pregnancy

During pregnancy with type 1 diabetes, the target range is narrower: between 63 and 140 mg/dL (3.5–7.8 mmol/L) for more than 70% of the time, with less than 4% below 63 mg/dL, less than 1% below 54 mg/dL and less than 25% above 140 mg/dL ^[3]. The consensus warns that these percentages are based on limited evidence and that more research is needed ^[3].

What NICE and the Spanish health system do

Not every guideline has adopted numerical TIR targets. The UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends offering all adults with type 1 diabetes a choice between real-time and flash sensors, but keeps an HbA1c of 48 mmol/mol (6.5%) or lower as the main target, and mentions time in range only as an example of a treatment goal ^[12].

In Spain, the National Health System gradually introduced glucose monitoring between 2018 and 2020 for people with type 1 diabetes on intensive insulin therapy who need at least six finger-prick tests a day, and in 2022 it agreed to extend it, with the same criteria, to type 2 diabetes, gradually and with a deadline of 31 December 2024 ^[13]. The same resolution provides for withdrawing the sensor if it is not used at least 70% of the time, and requires patients to be trained in interpreting values and trends and in the device's limitations ^[13].

First, reduce the lows

The consensus sets a clear priority: the first step is to bring time below range down to target, and only then address time in range or time above range ^[3]. The ADA explains why: hypoglycaemia can cause immediate harm, especially if it leads to falls or road accidents, and level 1 and 2 events are strong risk factors for severe events ^[1].

How it is calculated and how much data you need

From readings to minutes

Because TIR is a percentage of the day, each percentage point is worth about 14 minutes. That is why the consensus translates the 70% target into just over 16 hours and 48 minutes a day, and the 4% limit below 70 mg/dL into less than one hour ^[3]. A 10% increase in TIR equals 2.4 more hours a day in range ^[14].

Thinking in hours helps put things in perspective: going from a TIR of 60% to 65% means gaining just over an hour a day in range, and the consensus considers that each 5% increase is associated with clinically significant benefits in type 1 and type 2 diabetes ^[3].

The 14-day and 70% wear rule

For TIR to be representative, you need enough data. The 2017 consensus indicated that a minimum of 14 consecutive days, with around 70% of possible readings, appears to generate a report suitable for analysis and decision-making ^[5]. The 2019 consensus added that more than 70% wear over the last 14 days correlates well with the mean glucose, times in range and hyperglycaemia of the last three months, although people with more variable glucose may need more time, for example four weeks of data to assess exposure to hypoglycaemia ^[3].

The ADA accepts a 10- to 14-day assessment with sensor wear of 70% or more ^[1]. The same 70% threshold is the one the Spanish National Health System uses to keep funding the sensor ^[13].

What can affect the readings

The sensor does not measure glucose in blood but in interstitial fluid, the fluid that surrounds your cells. The two correlate well, but sensor glucose can lag when glucose is rising or falling quickly ^[9]. The Spanish Diabetes Society (SED) puts it this way: when glucose is falling, the sensor shows higher values than capillary blood glucose, and when it is rising, lower values ^[15]. The difference is not necessarily a sensor error: it measures in a different place, with a physiological delay ^[15].

How long is that delay? A tracer study in healthy fasting adults put it at about 5 to 6 minutes ^[16]. In real life it can be longer: Diabetes UK says the sensor can lag up to 15 minutes behind blood glucose and that the difference tends to be larger when you eat or exercise ^[17].

Other factors worth knowing:

• Accuracy: early sensors had a mean error (MARD) above 20%, compared with about 10% for the models available in 2018, and accuracy worsens in hypoglycaemia, in hyperglycaemia, with rapid changes and at the beginning and end of a sensor's life ^[15].
• Interfering substances: the ADA warns, for example, that vitamin C in amounts above 500 mg/day can give readings higher than actual glucose on some sensor models, and recommends educating users about substances and factors that affect accuracy ^[9].
• Finger-prick checks: NICE points out that, even with a sensor, capillary blood glucose may be needed to check its accuracy ^[12], and Diabetes UK advises doing one if how you feel does not match the reading ^[17]. The SED adds that, while treating a hypo, recovery should not be judged on the sensor alone, because it will keep showing low values when capillary glucose has already returned to normal ^[15].

Time in range and HbA1c: related, but not the same

The average relationship

TIR and HbA1c are clearly related. According to the ADA, a TIR above 70% aligns with an HbA1c of about 7% (53 mmol/mol) ^[1]. In an analysis of 545 adults with type 1 diabetes, a TIR of 70% corresponded on average to an HbA1c of about 7%, and one of 50% to about 8% ^[14].

What varies is the size of the change. The 2019 consensus estimates that each 10% more TIR corresponds to about 0.5 points lower HbA1c ^[3], and the analysis of 545 adults with type 1 diabetes it draws on puts it at 0.6 points on average ^[14]. A review of 18 articles with data from different studies put it at 0.8 points ^[18].

An equivalence that does not work for each person

The most important point is the spread. In the analysis of adults with type 1 diabetes, with a TIR of 50% the actual HbA1c could range from 6.6% to 9.2% ^[14]. The 2019 consensus gives a prediction interval of 5.6% to 8.3% for an estimated HbA1c of 7% with a TIR of 70% ^[3]. In addition, the effect of improving TIR depends on the starting point: a 10% increase was associated with an average drop of about one HbA1c point in people starting at 8% or higher, but of only 0.4 points in those starting between 7% and 7.9% ^[14].

Why your GMI and your HbA1c may not match

GMI used to be called "estimated HbA1c". The name was changed at the request of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to avoid confusion, precisely because it often does not match laboratory HbA1c ^[7]. In the study that defined it, the two figures were identical only 19% of the time and differed by 0.5 points or more 28% of the time ^[7].

The reasons vary. GMI reflects mean sensor glucose, while HbA1c depends on haemoglobin glycation and on the lifespan of red blood cells, which changes in situations such as some haemoglobinopathies or haemolytic anaemia ^[7]. The formula was also derived from data from a single type of sensor, so it is not certain to be identical with others ^[7].

The good news is that the difference between GMI and HbA1c tends to stay stable in each person over time ^[7]. The ADA/EASD consensus notes that GMI may be higher or lower than actual HbA1c in some people ^[2], so it is useful to know your usual difference and discuss it with your team.

What the evidence says about TIR and complications

A metric being practical is not enough: it has to be linked to what matters, which is long-term health. This is the main evidence.

The DCCT reanalysis

The DCCT was a clinical trial carried out between 1983 and 1993 in people with type 1 diabetes, comparing intensive with conventional treatment. A reanalysis of its 1,440 participants calculated TIR from seven-point capillary glucose profiles and found that, for every 10 percentage points lower TIR, the risk of retinopathy progression rose by 64% and the risk of developing microalbuminuria by 40% ^[6]. The intensive treatment group had a mean TIR of 52%, compared with 31% in the conventional group ^[6].

There is an important limitation: that TIR was not measured with a sensor, but with daytime capillary readings, with no overnight data ^[6]. Even so, the authors concluded that TIR is strongly associated with the risk of microvascular complications and should be accepted as an outcome in clinical trials ^[6].

Sensor studies in type 2 diabetes

In a study of 3,262 people with type 2 diabetes in Shanghai, in which TIR was measured with a sensor, those with more advanced retinopathy had less time in range, and the association held at every stage after adjusting for HbA1c and other factors ^[19].

Another study followed 6,225 adults with type 2 diabetes for a median of 6.9 years ^[20]. Compared with those whose TIR was above 85%, people with a TIR of 50% or less had an 83% higher risk of death from any cause (HR 1.83) and an 85% higher risk of cardiovascular death (HR 1.85) ^[20]. Each 10% lower TIR was associated with 8% higher all-cause mortality ^[20]. The authors themselves stress that they used only three days of an older-generation sensor and that causality can only be inferred ^[20].

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses

A 2022 systematic review brought together 34 studies with 20,852 participants, the vast majority with type 2 diabetes and 663 with type 1 ^[21]. Higher TIR was associated with a lower risk of albuminuria, retinopathy, cardiovascular and all-cause mortality, and abnormal carotid wall thickening, and TIR was the most consistent of all sensor-derived metrics ^[21]. But 30 of the 34 studies were cross-sectional and most used only 48 to 72 hours of data ^[21].

A 2026 meta-analysis of 24 observational studies and 35,916 people with type 2 diabetes estimated that each 10% more TIR is associated with lower odds of death from any cause (OR 0.88), retinopathy (OR 0.92), peripheral neuropathy (OR 0.77) and lower-limb arterial disease (OR 0.86) ^[22]. By contrast, the associations with albuminuria and amputation did not reach statistical significance ^[22].

Study	Population	Main finding
DCCT reanalysis (2019)	1,440 people with type 1	For every 10 points lower TIR (calculated from capillary readings), +64% risk of retinopathy progression [6]
Shanghai study (2018)	3,262 people with type 2	Less TIR in more advanced stages of retinopathy
Mortality cohort (2021)	6,225 people with type 2	TIR of 50% or less: 1.83 times the risk of death compared with more than 85%
Systematic review (2022)	34 studies, 20,852 people	TIR is the sensor metric most consistently associated with complications
Meta-analysis (2026)	24 studies, 35,916 people with type 2	Each 10% more TIR, lower mortality, retinopathy and neuropathy

What we still do not know

The evidence points in a consistent direction, but it should be read with caution:

• It is observational. There are still no trials showing that raising TIR, by itself, reduces serious complications; the 2026 meta-analysis explicitly calls for randomised trials ^[22].
• It comes mostly from one country. Nearly 80% of the studies in the meta-analysis were carried out in China, which limits how far the findings can be generalised ^[22].
• Type 1 data are scarce. The 2022 review calls for more longitudinal studies, particularly in type 1 diabetes, where data are limited ^[21].
• HbA1c is not displaced. The ADA itself reminds patients that much of what is known about TIR and complications comes from data from before sensors were in use and that a lot more research is needed ^[4].

Time in tight range and people without diabetes

Time in tight range (70–140 mg/dL)

Time in tight range (TITR), the time between 70 and 140 mg/dL, is being discussed more and more. As we saw, this range already appeared as a secondary range in the 2017 consensus ^[5]. The 2024 ISPAD guideline presents it as an emerging metric that still needs validation, with a possible target of more than 50% of the time between 70 and 144 mg/dL (3.9–8.0 mmol/L) ^[11].

A real-world analysis of more than 20,000 sensor users found that TITR does not exceed 50% until mean glucose falls below 140 mg/dL, and proposed that it may be more useful than TIR when near-normal values are the goal ^[23]. It is worth knowing that two of its authors work for the sensor manufacturer ^[23]. For now, no adult consensus sets a TITR target.

What glucose looks like in people without diabetes

More and more people without diabetes wear a sensor out of curiosity. In a study of 153 healthy people aged 7 to 80, median time between 70 and 140 mg/dL was 96%, mean glucose was around 98–99 mg/dL (5.4–5.5 mmol/L; 104 mg/dL, or 5.8 mmol/L, in those over 60) and mean CV was 17% ^[24]. Even so, they spent a median of about 30 minutes a day above 140 mg/dL and about 15 minutes below 70 mg/dL ^[24].

A more recent study in the Framingham cohort, with 560 adults with normal glucose and a mean age of 58.5 years, found less "perfect" figures: 87% of the time between 70 and 140 mg/dL and about 3 hours a day above 140 mg/dL, although almost 98% of the time was between 70 and 180 mg/dL ^[25]. People with prediabetes spent 77.1% of the time between 70 and 140 mg/dL, and people with diabetes 46.2% ^[25].

Why you should not compare yourself with those figures

These data are a useful reference, but they are not a target for anyone in particular. Most healthy participants had some readings between 55 and 69 mg/dL (3.1–3.8 mmol/L), and 35% spent at least 2% of the time below 70 mg/dL ^[24]. And because the Framingham study is cross-sectional, it cannot tell whether those peaks above 140 mg/dL are linked to a higher future risk of diabetes ^[25]. If you have diabetes, your targets are the ones you agree with your team, because there is no universal TIR target ^[4].

How to interpret it in everyday life

Look at 14-day trends, not single days

A single day with worse numbers says little on its own. About 14 days of data, displayed as an AGP, closely reproduce a month's profile and give acceptable confidence for making decisions in most cases ^[8]. That is why it makes more sense to compare your TIR for the last two weeks with the two weeks before than to focus on yesterday's.

An example of reading the report

Imagine a 14-day report with 90% sensor wear, a TIR of 62%, 5% of the time below 70 mg/dL, 30% above 180 mg/dL and a CV of 40%. An orderly reading, following the order the consensus statements propose, would be:

1. Enough data: wear is above 70% over 14 days, so the report is representative ^[3].
2. Lows: time below 70 mg/dL is above the 4% target, and the consensus says this is the first thing to address ^[3].
3. Variability: a CV above 36% has been linked to the occurrence of hypoglycaemia ^[1], so the two are probably connected.
4. Time in range and above range: only then do you work on raising TIR and reducing time above 180 mg/dL ^[3].
5. Time-of-day patterns: the AGP shows at what times of day the highs and lows cluster ^[8].

With that information, the next step is to discuss it with your healthcare team, who can judge whether your treatment needs reviewing.

Link the curves to what you do

The ADA/EASD consensus encourages people with type 1 diabetes to review their own reports regularly and follow their progress over time ^[2]. The numbers make sense when you connect them to your routine: what you ate before that rise, how long the walk before that dip lasted, how you slept. A diary of meals, exercise and sleep alongside your sensor readings, like the one GlucoBeat offers, helps you see what effect each event had on your curve.

Differences between type 1 and type 2

• Variability: in real-world data from sensor users, at the same mean glucose, people with type 1 diabetes had a higher CV (36–38%) than people with type 2 (23–30%), and lower TIR and TITR ^[23]. When mean glucose is below 180 mg/dL, higher variability is associated with less time in range ^[23].
• Sensor use: the ADA recommends a sensor from diagnosis for people with diabetes treated with insulin, and also for those taking other medicines that can cause hypoglycaemia ^[9]. In insulin-treated type 2 diabetes, trials show reductions in HbA1c and increases in TIR with sensor use ^[9].
• Periodic use: when wearing a sensor continuously is not possible, the ADA considers periodic use to review treatment and habits ^[9].

Quick checklist for your report

Before your next appointment, go through these questions with your latest 14-day report ^[3]:

• Are there at least 14 days of data with 70% wear or more?
• Is time below 70 mg/dL under 4% (or 1% if your target is the one for older adults)?
• Is there any time below 54 mg/dL?
• What is your CV and has it changed since the previous report?
• At what times of day does the AGP show highs and lows clustering?
• How has your TIR changed compared with the previous two weeks?

When to talk to your healthcare team

TIR is a tool for conversations with your team, not for making decisions on your own. It is especially worth discussing in these situations:

• If you have frequent hypos or time below 54 mg/dL. The ADA recommends reviewing the history of hypoglycaemia at every visit for people at risk ^[1].
• If your GMI and your HbA1c do not match. A difference can have an explanation, as we saw, and your team can assess it ^{[7, 2]}.
• If how you feel often does not match what the sensor shows. In the moment, Diabetes UK advises checking with a finger-prick test ^[17]; if it happens often, it is worth raising.
• If you find it hard to wear the sensor most of the time, because without enough data the report becomes less reliable ^[3].
• If the data or the alarms make you anxious. Diabetes UK acknowledges that too much data can confuse or worry some people ^[17].

Remember that all glucose targets should be individualised and agreed with the person with diabetes ^[2]: the best TIR is the one you can maintain safely and with a good quality of life.

Frequently asked questions

Is a time in range below 70% bad?

Not necessarily. 70% is a general target, and the consensus recognises different targets depending on age, hypoglycaemia risk or pregnancy ^[3]. What is more, each 5% increase is associated with clinical benefits, so any sustained improvement counts ^[3].

How often should I look at my time in range?

It is most useful to review it over 14-day periods, which is what the consensus statements recommend for the figure to be representative ^[5]. Looking at it every day can help you understand a particular day, but decisions are made on trends.

Why does my sensor show something different from my meter?

Because they measure in different places: the sensor measures glucose in interstitial fluid and the meter measures capillary blood glucose. The differences grow when glucose changes quickly, such as after eating or during exercise ^{[15, 17]}.

Does it make sense to look at time in range if I don't have diabetes?

It can be interesting, but reference figures vary between studies (from 96% to 87% of the time between 70 and 140 mg/dL) ^{[24, 25]}, and because the Framingham study is cross-sectional, it cannot tell whether that time above 140 mg/dL is associated with a higher risk of diabetes ^[25]. If something worries you, talk to your doctor.

Does time in range replace HbA1c?

No. Guidelines use both in a complementary way ^[1], and some, such as NICE, still base their targets mainly on HbA1c ^[12]. The ADA itself considers that HbA1c will probably remain the standard measure ^[4].

Key takeaways

• Time in range is the percentage of the day with glucose between 70 and 180 mg/dL; it is read together with time below and above range, GMI and the coefficient of variation.
• The general target for adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes is a TIR above 70%, with less than 4% below 70 mg/dL and less than 1% below 54 mg/dL.
• Targets change for older or high-risk adults, children and pregnancy, and they are always individualised with the healthcare team.
• The priority is to reduce hypoglycaemia first and then increase time in range.
• About 14 days of data with 70% sensor wear or more are recommended for a representative report.
• TIR and HbA1c are related, but the equivalence varies widely from person to person; the same is true of GMI.
• More time in range is associated with fewer complications, although the evidence is mostly observational.
• Two-week trends and AGP patterns say far more than a single day.