Evidence mapPaperPMID 37671754Full record

Trial reportJournal of diabetes science and technology2025

The Effect of Do-It-Yourself Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring on Glycemic Variables and Participant-Reported Outcomes in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: A Randomized Crossover Trial.

Shekhar Sehgal, Mona Elbalshy, Jonathan Williman, Barbara Galland, Hamish Crocket, Rosemary Hall, Ryan Paul, Robert Leikis, Martin de Bock, Benjamin J Wheeler

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 33% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Technology in Diabetes: A Year in Review.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2026
    Review
  3. 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

10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Shekhar SehgalDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Dunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0002-2764-9980
Mona ElbalshyDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Dunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Jonathan WillimanDepartment of Paediatrics, Canterbury District Health Board, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Barbara GallandDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Dunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Hamish CrocketTe Huataki Waiora School of Health, The University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.
Rosemary HallTe Whatu Ora, Capital, Coast and Hutt Valley, Wellington, New Zealand.
Ryan PaulTe Huataki Waiora School of Health, The University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.
Robert LeikisTe Whatu Ora, Hawke's Bay, Hastings, New Zealand.
Martin de BockDepartment of Paediatrics, Canterbury District Health Board, Christchurch, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0003-0454-6679
Benjamin J WheelerDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Dunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0003-3348-5238
University of Otago · NZCanterbury District Health Board · NZUniversity of Waikato · NZHawke's Bay Hospital · NZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimReal-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) has several advantages over intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) but generally comes at a higher cost. Do-it-yourself rtCGM (DIY-rtCGM) potentially has benefits similar to those of rtCGM. This study compared outcomes in adults with type 1 diabetes using DIY-rtCGM versus isCGM.

methodsIn this crossover trial, adults with type 1 diabetes were randomized to use isCGM or DIY-rtCGM for eight weeks before crossover to use the other device for eight weeks, after a four-week washout period where participants reverted back to isCGM. The primary endpoint was time in range (TIR; 3.9-10 mmol/L). Secondary endpoints included other glycemic control measures, psychosocial outcomes, and sleep quality.

resultsSixty participants were recruited, and 52 (87%) completed follow-up. Glucose outcomes were similar in the DIY-rtCGM and isCGM groups, including TIR (53.1% vs 51.3%; mean difference -1.7%

conclusionAlthough the use of DIY-rtCGM did not improve glycemic outcomes compared with isCGM, it positively impacted several patient-reported psychosocial variables. DIY-rtCGM potentially provides an alternative, cost-effective rtCGM option.

Indexed as

Blood GlucoseBlood Glucose Self-MonitoringDiabetes Mellitus, Type 1AdultContinuous Glucose MonitoringCross-Over StudiesFemaleGlycated HemoglobinGlycemic ControlHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresBlood GlucoseGlycated Hemoglobincontinuous glucose monitoringglycemic controlhealth-related quality of lifehypoglycemiapsychosocial outcomestype 1 diabetes mellitus

Identifiers

PMID37671754
PMCPMC11873873
OpenAlexW4386467363

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.