ArticleExperimental and clinical endocrinology & diabetes : official journal, German Society of Endocrinology [and] German Diabetes Association2022
Choice of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems May Affect Metrics: Clinically Relevant Differences in Times in Ranges.
Article in Experimental and clinical endocrinology & diabetes : official journal, German Society of Endocrinology [and] German Diabetes Association, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Within-Person and Between-Sensor Variability in Continuous Glucose Monitoring Metrics.Clinical chemistry · 2023Trial
- Continuous glucose monitoring as a tool in early-stage type 1 diabetes.Diabetologia · 2026Review
- Double Dummy Design for Blinding Studies With Automated Insulin Delivery Systems: A Proof of Concept Trial.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2026Article
- Review
- Consensus statement on standardizing CGM evaluation metrics in Latin America: an expert approach.Diabetology & metabolic syndrome · 2025Article
- Glycated hemoglobin is not enough: The role of glycemia risk index for glycemic control assessment in type 1 diabetes.World journal of diabetes · 2025Article
- Long-Term Performance of Two Systems for Automated Insulin Delivery in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: An Observational Study.Endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism · 2025Observational
- Glycemia Risk Index Assessment in a Pediatric and Adult Patient Cohort With Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2024Article
- Continuous Glucose Deviation Interval and Variability Analysis (CG-DIVA): A Novel Approach for the Statistical Accuracy Assessment of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2024Article
- Impact of glucose variability on the assessment of the glycemia risk index (GRI) and classic glycemic metrics.Endocrine · 2023Article
- Discrepancies in glycemic metrics derived from different continuous glucose monitoring systems in adult patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus.Journal of diabetes · 2022Article
- Data Obtained with Early Generations of CGM Sensors: Comment on Pleus et al.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2022Article
- Hemoglobin ADiabetes care · 2021Review
- Benefits of a Switch from Intermittently Scanned Continuous Glucose Monitoring (isCGM) to Real-Time (rt) CGM in Diabetes Type 1 Suboptimal Controlled Patients in Real-Life: A One-Year Prospective StudySensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Continuous Glucose Monitoring in the Hospital.Endocrinology and metabolism (Seoul, Korea) · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundContinuous glucose monitoring-derived parameters are becoming increasingly important in the treatment of people with diabetes. The aim of this study was to assess whether these parameters, as calculated from different continuous glucose monitoring systems worn in parallel, are comparable. In addition, clinical relevance of differences was investigated.
methodsA total of 24 subjects wore a FreeStyle Libre (A) and a Dexcom G5 (B) sensor in parallel for 7 days. Mean glucose, coefficient of variation, glucose management indicator and time spent in different glucose ranges were calculated for each system. Pairwise differences between the two different continuous glucose monitoring systems were computed for these metrics.
resultsOn average, the two CGM systems indicated an identical time in range (67.9±10.2 vs. 67.9±11.5%) and a similar coefficient of variation; both categorized as unstable (38.1±5.9 vs. 36.0±4.8%). In contrast, the mean time spent below and above range, as well as the individual times spent below, in and above range differed substantially. System A indicated about twice the time spent below range than system B (7.7±7.2 vs. 3.8±2.7%, p=0.003). This could have led to different therapy recommendations in approximately half of the subjects. DISCUSSION: The differences in metrics found between the two continuous glucose monitoring systems may result in different therapy recommendations. In order to make adequate clinical decisions, measurement performance of CGM systems should be standardized and all available information, including the HbA1c, should be utilized.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33511578What 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.