ArticleCureus2024
The Discrepancy Between Hemoglobin A1c and Glucose Management Indicators in 26 Patients Treated With Continuous Glucose Monitoring in an Internal Medicine Residency Clinic.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study between 2020 and 2023 in 26 patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) who were using 3-4 injections per day of insulin and were monitored by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). The goal of this retrospective observational cohort study is to compare these two metrics in an internal medicine community primary care residency clinic. We used CGM devices, Dexcom G6 and G7, and Freestyle Libre 3. The goal was to compare the patient's hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) taken during their clinic visit by phlebotomy as a marker for diabetic control with an estimated HbA1c glucose management indicator (GMI) derived from the 30-day CGM readings. HbA1c is derived from the blood, while the GMI value is derived from the interstitial fluid. Both parameters were taken within 30 days of each other. GMI was taken in the last 30 days. We excluded patients with known anemia, chronic kidney disease, polycythemia, cirrhosis of the liver, or metabolic dysfunction associated with steatohepatitis (MASH) because disease states can affect the measured HbA1c. Also, pregnant and African American patients were excluded. We concluded the measured HbA1c was 0.34% (4 mmol/mol) higher than the CGM-derived GMI. The relationship between factors that affect glycemic control was discussed in the article, as well as the future utilization of them in improving diabetic control and management. As the use of CGM continues to grow, addressing differences between laboratory-measured HbA1c and CGM-derived GMI is critical.
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.