Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26784127›Full record

ReviewDiabetes technology & therapeutics2016

Continuous Glucose Monitoring: A Review of Successes, Challenges, and Opportunities.

David Rodbard

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Diabetes technology & therapeutics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04102657 (Blood Glucose Differences Between Left Arm and Right Arm Using a Continuous Glucose), which is not on this map. Cited by 288 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
288citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
60.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

NCT04102657 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

Blood Glucose Differences Between Left Arm and Right Arm Using a Continuous Glucose

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of the PacificRan2019 to 2019Enrolled46ConditionsDiabetesArmsIntermittent Fasting, Free-Living Diet, Left Arm Exercise, Right Arm Exercise
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

288 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 713 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Continuous glucose monitoring in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review of barriers and opportunities for care improvement.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Tissue Response to Subcutaneous Infusion Catheter.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2020
    Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

228 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

David RodbardBiomedical Informatics Consultants LLC , Potomac, Maryland.
Clinical Research Consultants (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) provides information unattainable by intermittent capillary blood glucose, including instantaneous real-time display of glucose level and rate of change of glucose, alerts and alarms for actual or impending hypo- and hyperglycemia, "24/7" coverage, and the ability to characterize glycemic variability. Progressively more accurate and precise, reasonably unobtrusive, small, comfortable, user-friendly devices connect to the Internet to share information and are sine qua non for a closed-loop artificial pancreas. CGM can inform, educate, motivate, and alert people with diabetes. CGM is medically indicated for patients with frequent, severe, or nocturnal hypoglycemia, especially in the presence of hypoglycemia unawareness. Surprisingly, despite tremendous advances, utilization of CGM has remained fairly limited to date. Barriers to use have included the following: (1) lack of Food and Drug Administration approval, to date, for insulin dosing ("nonadjuvant use") in the United States and for use in hospital and intensive care unit settings; (2) cost and variable reimbursement; (3) need for recalibrations; (4) periodic replacement of sensors; (5) day-to-day variability in glycemic patterns, which can limit the predictability of findings based on retrospective, masked "professional" use; (6) time, implicit costs, and inconvenience for uploading of data for retrospective analysis; (7) lack of fair and reasonable reimbursement for physician time; (8) inexperience and lack of training of physicians and other healthcare professionals regarding interpretation of CGM results; (9) lack of standardization of software methods for analysis of CGM data; and (10) need for professional medical organizations to develop and disseminate additional clinical practice guidelines regarding the role of CGM. Ongoing advances in technology and clinical research have addressed several of these barriers. Use of CGM in conjunction with an insulin pump with automated suspension of insulin infusion in response to actual observed or predicted hypoglycemia, as well as progressive refinement of closed-loop systems, is expected to dramatically enhance the clinical utility and utilization of CGM.

Indexed as

Blood GlucoseBlood Glucose Self-MonitoringDiabetes MellitusHumansHyperglycemiaHypoglycemiaHypoglycemic AgentsInsulinInsulin Infusion SystemsMonitoring, AmbulatoryPancreas, ArtificialUnited StatesBlood GlucoseHypoglycemic AgentsInsulin

Identifiers

PMID26784127
PMCPMC4717493
OpenAlexW2278129565

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.