ArticleNature clinical practice. Endocrinology & metabolism2009
How effective is continuous glucose monitoring in intensively treated type 1 diabetes mellitus?
Article in Nature clinical practice. Endocrinology & metabolism, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This Practice Point commentary discusses the findings of a multicenter clinical trial conducted by the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Continuous Glucose Monitoring Study Group. In the study, 322 individuals aged >/=8 years who were already receiving intensive insulin therapy for type 1 diabetes mellitus were randomly assigned to either a group that performed continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), or to a control group that performed conventional self-monitoring with a blood-glucose meter. At week 26, the between-group difference in the change in HbA(1c) level from baseline varied according to the patient's age. A significantly greater reduction in HbA(1c) level in the CGM group compared with the control group was found in patients aged >or=25 years, but not in those aged 8-14 years or 15-24 years. In patients aged >or=25 years, CGM improved glycemic control without increasing the frequency of hypoglycemia. Motivation, willingness to change diabetes self-care behaviors, and the ability to use CGM effectively are important determinants of whether this technology will improve glycemic control.
Identifiers
19229230What 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.