ArticleJournal of diabetes investigation2025
The benefits and accuracy of real-time continuous glucose monitoring in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes attending a summer camp.
Article in Journal of diabetes investigation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Continuous Glucose Monitoring-New Diagnostic Tool in Complex Pathophysiological Disorder of Glucose Metabolism in Children and Adolescents with Obesity.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
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.
Funding
Abstract
AIMS/
introductionThis study evaluated the usability, satisfaction, and accuracy of a real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rt-CGM) in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D) attending a summer camp. MATERIALS AND
methodsSeven children and adolescents with T1D (camper) and 31 of healthcare providers (HCPs) participating in a 2-day summer camp in Kumamoto, Japan were enrolled. The usability and satisfaction were evaluated by tailored questionnaire. The accuracy of rt-CGM was evaluated using self-monitoring of blood glucose (BG) and sensor glucose (SG) values before or after (off camp) and during (on camp) the camp.
resultsThe score of the usefulness of rt-CGM showed 3.29 ± 0.90 in campers and 4.23 ± 0.87 in HCPs (P = 0.017). The degree of recommendation score for rt-CGM was 3.29 ± 1.11 in campers and 4.23 ± 0.79 in HCPs (P = 0.013). Time in range (TIR) off camp was 45.9% and that on camp was 57.0%. Time above range (TAR) off camp was 53.4% and that on camp was 42.4%. The mean absolute relative difference (MARD) off camp was 19.7% ± 25.2%, whereas that on camp was 16.0% ± 14.8% (P = 0.367). Clinically acceptable zones of the error grid analyses were approximately 96% in total.
conclusionsRt-CGM exhibited higher usability and recommendation scores in HCPs than those in campers. This may be related to relatively lower accuracy in rt-CGM. Overall usability and recommendation are clinically satisfactory, but due to relatively low accuracy, no decision should be made based on a single, non-verified SG value alone.
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.