ArticleJournal of diabetes2022
Discrepancies in glycemic metrics derived from different continuous glucose monitoring systems in adult patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus.
Article in Journal of diabetes, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03522870 (Effects of Novel Flash Glucose Monitoring System on Glycemic Control in Adult Patients With Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 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.
Effects of Novel Flash Glucose Monitoring System on Glycemic Control in Adult Patients With Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integration of Continuous Glucose Monitoring With HbAJMIR diabetes · 2026Article
- Review
- Time in range-A new gold standard in type 2 diabetes research?Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2025Review
- Mixed Meal Tolerance Test Versus Continuous Glucose Monitoring for an Effective Diagnosis of Persistent Post-Bariatric Hypoglycemia.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Discrepancies in glycemic metrics derived from different continuous glucose monitoring systems in adult patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus.Journal of diabetes · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundContinuous glucose monitoring systems have been widely used but discrepancies among various brands of devices are rarely discussed. This study aimed to explore differences in glycemic metrics between FreeStyle Libre (FSL) and iPro2 among adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM).
methodsParticipants with T1DM and glycosylated hemoglobin of 7%-10% were included and wore FSL and iPro2 for 2 weeks simultaneously. Datasets collected on the insertion and detachment day, and those with insufficient quantity (<90%) were excluded. Agreements of measurement accuracy and glycemic metrics were evaluated.
resultsA total of 40 498 paired data were included. Compared with the values from FSL, significantly higher median value was observed in iPro2 (147.6 [106.2, 192.6] vs. 144.0 [100.8, 192.6] mg/dl, p < 0.001) and the largest discordance was observed in hypoglycemic range (median absolute relative difference with iPro2 as reference value: 25.8% [10.8%, 42.1%]). Furthermore, significant differences in glycemic metrics between iPro2 and FSL were also observed in time in range (TIR) 70-180 mg/dl (TIR, 62.8 ± 12.4% vs. 58.8 ± 12.3%, p = 0.004), time spent below 70 mg/dl (4.4 [1.8, 10.9]% vs. 7.2 [5.4, 13.3]%, p < 0.001), time spent below 54 mg/dl (0.9 [0.3, 4.0]% vs. 2.6 [1.3, 5.6]%, p = 0.011), and coefficient of variation (CV, 38.7 ± 8.5% vs. 40.9 ± 9.3%, p = 0.017).
conclusionsDuring 14 days of use, FSL and iPro2 provided different estimations on TIR, CV, and hypoglycemia-related parameters, which needs to be considered when making clinical decisions and clinical trial designs.
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.