ArticleJournal of diabetes science and technology2022
Technologies for Diabetes Self-Monitoring: A Scoping Review and Assessment Using the REASSURED Criteria.
Article in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy of quercetin-like compounds from the mistletoe plant ofThe veterinary quarterly · 2024Article
- Article
- Nanoplasmonic Strip Test for Salivary Glucose Monitoring.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSelf-management is an important pillar for diabetes control and to achieve it, glucose self-monitoring devices are needed. Currently, there exist several different devices in the market and many others are being developed. However, whether these devices are suitable to be used in resource constrained settings is yet to be evaluated.
aimsTo assess existing glucose monitoring tools and also those in development against the REASSURED which have been previously used to evaluate diagnostic tools for communicable diseases.
methodsWe conducted a scoping review by searching PubMed for peer-review articles published in either English, Spanish or Portuguese in the last 5 years. We selected papers including information about devices used for self-monitoring and tested on humans with diabetes; then, the REASSURED criteria were used to assess them.
resultsWe found a total of 7 continuous glucose monitoring device groups, 6 non-continuous, and 6 devices in development. Accuracy varied between devices and most of them were either invasive or minimally invasive. Little to no evidence is published around robustness, affordability and delivery to those in need. However, when reviewing publicly available prices, none of the devices would be affordable for people living in low- and middle-income countries.
conclusionsAvailable devices cannot be considered adapted for use in self-monitoring in resource constraints settings. Further studies should aim to develop less-invasive devices that do not require a large set of components. Additionally, we suggest some improvement in the REASSURED criteria such as the inclusion of patient-important outcomes to increase its appropriateness to assess non-communicable diseases devices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.