Trial reportClinical chemistry2023
Performance of the Glucose Management Indicator (GMI) in Type 2 Diabetes.
Trial report in Clinical chemistry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02454153 (Hyperglycemic Profiles in Obstructive Sleep Apnea), which is not on this map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Hyperglycemic Profiles in Obstructive Sleep Apnea: Effects of PAP Therapy
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Diabetes technology (Update 2026)].Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2026Guideline
- Trial
- A Structured Narrative Review of the OSA-T2DM Axis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Time in range-A new gold standard in type 2 diabetes research?Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2025Review
- Consistency of the personalized glycated haemoglobin (pHbA1c) methodology over time in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using continuous glucose monitoring.Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2025Article
- Diabetes Care and Mental Health During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Perspectives of Adolescents with Diabetes, Parents, and Providers.Journal of clinical psychology in medical settings · 2025Article
- The related factors affecting the relationship between HbA1c and glucose management indicator in adult T2D patients with good glycemic control.Endocrine · 2025Article
- Case Report: Food-based enteral formula in the nutritional management of children with hyperinsulinism: single center retrospective case series.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Article
- Continuous Glucose Monitoring Metrics and Hemoglobin A1c Relationship in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Treated by Hemodialysis.Diabetes technology & therapeutics · 2024Observational
- The Glucose Management Indicator: Time to Change Course?Diabetes care · 2024Review
- Article
- Enhancement of Ambulatory Glucose Profile for Decision Assistance and Treatment Adjustments.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe glucose management indicator (GMI) is an estimated measure of hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) recommended for the management of persons with diabetes using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). However, GMI was derived primarily in young adults with type 1 diabetes, and its performance in patients with type 2 diabetes is poorly characterized.
methodsWe conducted a prospective cohort study in 144 adults with obstructive sleep apnea and type 2 diabetes not using insulin (mean age: 59.4 years; 45.1% female). HbA1c was measured at the study screening visit. Participants simultaneously wore 2 CGM sensors (Dexcom G4 and Abbott Libre Pro) for up to 4 weeks (2 weeks at baseline and 2 weeks at the 3-month follow-up visit). GMI was calculated using all available CGM data for each sensor.
resultsMedian wear time was 27 days (IQR: 23-29) for the Dexcom G4 and 28 days (IQR: 24-29) for the Libre Pro. The mean difference between HbA1c and GMI was small (0.12-0.14 percentage points) (approximately 2 mmol/mol). However, the 2 measures were only moderately correlated (r = 0.68-0.71), and there was substantial variability in GMI at any given value of HbA1c (root mean squared error: 0.66-0.69 percentage points [7 to 8 mmol/mol]). Between 36% and 43% of participants had an absolute difference between HbA1c and GMI ≥0.5 percentage points (≥5 mmol/mol), and 9% to 18% had an absolute difference >1 percentage points (>11 mmol/mol). Discordance was higher in the Libre Pro than the Dexcom G4.
conclusionsGMI may be an unreliable measure of glycemic control for patients with type 2 diabetes and should be interpreted cautiously in clinical practice.Clinicaltrials.gov Registration Number: NCT02454153.
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.