Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28654305›Full record

ArticleJournal of diabetes science and technology2017

Commentary Regarding Shapiro, "Nonadjunctive Use of Continuous Glucose Monitors for Insulin Dosing: Is It Safe?"

David Price

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComment
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 32% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

David Price1 Dexcom, Inc, San Diego, CA, USA.
Dexcom (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The FDA recently expanded the approved use of Dexcom's G5 Mobile continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system to allow for diabetes treatment decisions. This decision is expected to reduce the burden of SMBG testing and increase the adoption and persistent use of CGM. The safety of nonadjunctive CGM use was questioned because of sporadic large discrepancies between CGM and SMBG values. These data were viewed in the context of complaints found in the FDA MAUDE database and social media postings. This commentary provides additional perspective on the inferences that can be drawn from these reports and the risk of nonadjunctive use of CGM data.

Indexed as

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1InsulinBlood GlucoseBlood Glucose Self-MonitoringDecision MakingHumansBlood GlucoseInsulincontinuous glucose monitoringFDA decisionsnonadjunctive useself-monitored blood glucose

Identifiers

PMID28654305
PMCPMC5588837
OpenAlexW2592012507

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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.