Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37568271›Full record

ArticleJournal of diabetes science and technology2024

Age and Red Blood Cell Parameters Mainly Explain the Differences Between HbA1c and Glycemic Management Indicator Among Patients With Type 1 Diabetes Using Intermittent Continuous Glucose Monitoring.

Pablo Azcoitia, Raquel Rodríguez-Castellano, Pedro Saavedra, María P Alberiche, Dunia Marrero, Ana M Wägner, Antonio Ojeda, Mauro Boronat

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

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. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Observational
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Pablo AzcoitiaSection of Endocrinology and Nutrition, Complejo Hospitalario Universitario Insular-Materno Infantil, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain.
Raquel Rodríguez-CastellanoSection of Endocrinology and Nutrition, Complejo Hospitalario Universitario Insular-Materno Infantil, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain.
Pedro SaavedraDepartment of Mathematics, University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain.
María P AlbericheSection of Endocrinology and Nutrition, Complejo Hospitalario Universitario Insular-Materno Infantil, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-9642-3996
Dunia MarreroSection of Endocrinology and Nutrition, Complejo Hospitalario Universitario Insular-Materno Infantil, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain.
Ana M WägnerSection of Endocrinology and Nutrition, Complejo Hospitalario Universitario Insular-Materno Infantil, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain.
Antonio OjedaSection of Endocrinology and Nutrition, Complejo Hospitalario Universitario Insular-Materno Infantil, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain.
Mauro BoronatSection of Endocrinology and Nutrition, Complejo Hospitalario Universitario Insular-Materno Infantil, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-8535-8543

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGlycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) is the gold standard to assess glycemic control in patients with diabetes. Glucose management indicator (GMI), a metric generated by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), has been proposed as an alternative to HbA1c, but the two values may differ, complicating clinical decision-making. This study aimed to identify the factors that may explain the discrepancy between them.

methodsSubjects were patients with type 1 diabetes, with one or more HbA1c measurements after starting the use of the Freestyle Libre 2 intermittent CGM, who shared their data with the center on the Libreview platform. The 14-day glucometric reports were retrieved, with the end date coinciding with the date of each HbA1c measurement, and those with sensor use ≥70% were selected. Clinical data prior to the start of CGM use, glucometric data from each report, and other simultaneous laboratory measurements with HbA1c were collected.

resultsA total of 646 HbA1c values and their corresponding glucometric reports were obtained from 339 patients. The absolute difference between HbA1c and GMI was <0.3% in only 38.7% of cases. Univariate analysis showed that the HbA1c-GMI value was associated with age, diabetes duration, estimated glomerular filtration rate, mean corpuscular volume (MCV), red cell distribution width (RDW), and time with glucose between 180 and 250 mg/dL. In a multilevel model, only age and RDW, positively, and MCV, negatively, were correlated to HbA1c-GMI.

conclusionThe difference between HbA1c and GMI is clinically relevant in a high percentage of cases. Age and easily accessible hematological parameters (MCV and RDW) can help to interpret these differences.

Indexed as

Blood GlucoseBlood Glucose Self-MonitoringDiabetes Mellitus, Type 1Glycated HemoglobinAdultAge FactorsContinuous Glucose MonitoringErythrocyte IndicesErythrocytesFemaleGlycemic ControlHumansMaleMiddle AgedYoung AdultBlood GlucoseGlycated Hemoglobinhemoglobin A1c protein, humancontinuous glucose monitoringglucose management indicatorHbA1cmean corpuscular volumered cell distribution widthtype 1 diabetes mellitus

Identifiers

PMID37568271
PMCPMC11529079

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.