ArticleJournal of diabetes science and technology2024
Difference on Glucose Profile From Continuous Glucose Monitoring in People With Prediabetes vs. Normoglycemic Individuals: A Matched-Pair Analysis.
Article in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Differences in Continuous Glucose Monitoring Metrics Between Prediabetes and Normoglycemia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2026Review
- Associations of diet composition and quality with continuous glucose monitor-derived glycemic metrics in a community-based cohort.The American journal of clinical nutrition · 2025Article
- Weight loss is associated with improved daytime time in range in adults with prediabetes and non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes undergoing dietary intervention.Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2025Article
- Improved detection of decreased glucose handling capacities via continuous glucose monitoring-derived indices.Communications medicine · 2025Article
- Are standardized conditions needed for correct CGM data interpretation in subjects at early stages of glucose intolerance?Diabetology & metabolic syndrome · 2025Article
- Screening for Impaired Glucose Homeostasis: A Novel Metric of Glycemic Control.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2023Article
- Roadmap to Achieving Continuous Glucose Monitoring Equity: Insights From the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative.Diabetes spectrum : a publication of the American Diabetes Association · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionComprehensive characteristics of the glycemic profile for prediabetes derived by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) are unknown. We evaluate the difference of CGM profiles between individuals with prediabetes and normoglycemic individuals, including the response to oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT).
methodsIndividuals with prediabetes matched for age, sex, and BMI with normoglycemic individuals were instructed to use professional CGM for 1 week. OGTT was performed on the second day. The primary outcomes were percentages of glucose readings time below range (TBR): <54 or <70 mg/dL, time in range (TIR): 70 to 180 mg/dL, and time above range (TAR): >180 or >250 mg/dL. Area under the curve (AUC) was calculated following the OGTT. Glucose variability was depicted by coefficient of variation (CV), SD, and mean amplitude of glucose excursion (MAGE). Wilcoxon sign-ranked test, McNemar mid
resultsIn all, 36 participants (median age 51 years; median body mass index [BMI] = 26.4 kg/m
conclusionIndividuals with prediabetes have different glucose profiles compared to normoglycemic individuals. CGM might be helpful in individuals with borderline glucose values for a more accurate reclassification.
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.