ArticleScientific reports2024
Glucose values from the same continuous glucose monitoring sensor significantly differ among readers with different generations of algorithm.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Do Metrics of Temporal Glycemic Variability Reveal Abnormal Glucose Rates of Change in Type 1 Diabetes?Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2026Article
- Use of continuous glucose monitoring systems in pediatric patients in the perioperative environment: Challenges and machine learning opportunities.World journal of clinical pediatrics · 2025Review
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
Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) values obtained from CGM systems using the same sensor but with different internal algorithms (the first- and third-generation FreeStyle Libre (1st-gen-libre and 3rd-gen-libre, respectively)) were compared. We used 19,819 paired and simultaneously measured CGM values of 13 patients with diabetes. The average CGM value was significantly higher (P < 0.0001) and the time below range (CGM value < 70 mg/dL) was significantly lower (P < 0.0001) with the 3rd-gen-libre than with the 1st-gen-libre. There was a significant correlation (P < 0.0001) between the CGM values of the 3rd-gen-libre (y-axis, mg/dL) and 1st-gen-libre (x-axis, mg/dL) using the following formula: y = 0.9728x + 10.024. On assessing the association between glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c (%), y-axis) and the average CGM values (x-axis, mg/dL) by applying the obtained equation to previously reported 1st-gen-libre data and converting it to 3rd-gen-libre data, we obtained the equation y = 0.02628x + 3.233, indicating that the glucose management indicator reported in the West may be underestimated compared with the laboratory-measured HbA1c in the Japanese population. Glucose values from the same sensor were found to be significantly different between readers with different algorithms, and the calculation of CGM-related indices may need to be individualized for each device.
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.