Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25929322›Full record

ArticleBMC endocrine disorders2015

Q-Score: development of a new metric for continuous glucose monitoring that enables stratification of antihyperglycaemic therapies.

Petra Augstein, Peter Heinke, Lutz Vogt, Roberto Vogt, Christine Rackow, Klaus-Dieter Kohnert, Eckhard Salzsieder

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC endocrine disorders, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Petra AugsteinInstitute for Diabetes "Gerhardt Katsch" Karlsburg, Greifswalder Str. 11e, 17495, Karlsburg, Germany. info@diabetes-karlsburg.de.
Peter HeinkeInstitute for Diabetes "Gerhardt Katsch" Karlsburg, Greifswalder Str. 11e, 17495, Karlsburg, Germany. heinke@diabetes-karlsburg.de.
Lutz VogtDiabetes Service Center Karlsburg, Greifswalder Str. 11e, 17495, Karlsburg, Germany. vogt@diabetes-service-center.de.
Roberto VogtErnst-Moritz-Arndt Universität Greifswald, Domstraße 11, 17487, Greifswald, Germany. rvogt@ibvnet.de.
Christine RackowInstitute for Diabetes "Gerhardt Katsch" Karlsburg, Greifswalder Str. 11e, 17495, Karlsburg, Germany. ch.rackow@web.de.
Klaus-Dieter KohnertInstitute for Diabetes "Gerhardt Katsch" Karlsburg, Greifswalder Str. 11e, 17495, Karlsburg, Germany. kohnert@diabetes-karlsburg.de.
Eckhard SalzsiederInstitute for Diabetes "Gerhardt Katsch" Karlsburg, Greifswalder Str. 11e, 17495, Karlsburg, Germany. salzsied@diabetes-karlsburg.de.
Institute for Diabetes Gerhardt Katsch · DEUniversität Greifswald · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundContinuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has revolutionised diabetes management. CGM enables complete visualisation of the glucose profile, and the uncovering of metabolic 'weak points'. A standardised procedure to evaluate the complex data acquired by CGM, and to create patient-tailored recommendations has not yet been developed. We aimed to develop a new patient-tailored approach for the routine clinical evaluation of CGM profiles. We developed a metric allowing screening for profiles that require therapeutic action and a method to identify the individual CGM parameters with improvement potential.

methodsFifteen parameters frequently used to assess CGM profiles were calculated for 1,562 historic CGM profiles from subjects with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Factor analysis and varimax rotation was performed to identify factors that accounted for the quality of the profiles.

resultsWe identified five primary factors that determined CGM profiles (central tendency, hyperglycaemia, hypoglycaemia, intra- and inter-daily variations). One parameter from each factor was selected for constructing the formula for the screening metric, (the 'Q-Score'). To derive Q-Score classifications, three diabetes specialists independently categorised 766 CGM profiles into groups of 'very good', 'good', 'satisfactory', 'fair', and 'poor' metabolic control. The Q-Score was then calculated for all profiles, and limits were defined based on the categorised groups (<4.0, very good; 4.0-5.9, good; 6.0-8.4, satisfactory; 8.5-11.9, fair; and ≥12.0, poor). Q-Scores increased significantly (P <0.01) with increasing antihyperglycaemic therapy complexity. Accordingly, the percentage of fair and poor profiles was higher in insulin-treated compared with diet-treated subjects (58.4% vs. 9.3%). In total, 90% of profiles categorised as fair or poor had at least three parameters that could potentially be optimised. The improvement potential of those parameters can be categorised as 'low', 'moderate' and 'high'.

conclusionsThe Q-Score is a new metric suitable to screen for CGM profiles that require therapeutic action. Moreover, because single components of the Q-Score formula respond to individual weak points in glycaemic control, parameters with improvement potential can be identified and used as targets for optimising patient-tailored therapies.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overBlood Glucose Self-MonitoringDiabetes Mellitus, Type 1Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2FemaleHumansHypoglycemic AgentsIndividualityMaleMiddle AgedPrecision MedicinePrognosisResearch DesignHypoglycemic Agents

Identifiers

PMID25929322
PMCPMC4447008
OpenAlexW2076483288

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.