Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40414826›Full record

ArticleYonsei medical journal2025

A Pilot Study Examining If the Additional Use of a Continuous Glucose Monitoring Is Helpful for Glucose Control in Older Adults.

Kwang Joon Kim, Yang Sun Park, Eunseo Sun, Euna Jo, Jiwon Shinn, Hyeon Woo Yim, Chang Oh Kim, Hun-Sung Kim

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Yonsei medical journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Kwang Joon KimDivision of Geriatrics, Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5554-8255
Yang Sun ParkDivision of Geriatrics, Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-9661-2912
Eunseo SunDivision of Geriatrics, Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-2705-0363
Euna JoDivision of Geriatrics, Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-8809-1518
Jiwon ShinnDepartment of Medical Informatics, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9131-6128
Hyeon Woo YimDepartment of Preventive Medicine, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3646-8161
Chang Oh KimDivision of Geriatrics, Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0773-5443
Hun-Sung KimDepartment of Medical Informatics, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7002-7300

Funding

National Institute of Health 2022ER110300National Research Foundation NRF-2019M3E5D3073104Patient-Centered Clinical Research Coordinating Center HC20C0086
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo investigate whether using a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for the second time (2nd_CGM) would be effective after using it for the first time (1st_CGM), depending on age. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis study included patients aged ≥40 years who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and had used a CGM at least twice between 2017 and 2021. Participants were divided into two groups based on their age: those aged <60 years and those aged ≥60 years. We assessed the glycemic control status of the 1st_CGM and 2nd_CGM, along with the glycemic variability.

resultsOverall, 15 patients were included in the study. The mean glucose level in users aged <60 years significantly decreased (

conclusionGlycemic effect and variability improved as expected with 1st_CGM use. However, 2nd_CGM did not significantly improve glycemic effect or variability in users aged ≥60 years, contrary to expectations. To address this issue, further investigation is needed to understand why, compared to 1st_CGM, 2nd_CGM fails to achieve better glycemic control in individuals aged ≥60 years.

Indexed as

Blood GlucoseBlood Glucose Self-MonitoringDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Glycemic ControlAdultAgedContinuous Glucose MonitoringFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPilot ProjectsBlood GlucoseAgeddiabetes mellitusglycemic control

Identifiers

PMID40414826
PMCPMC12116873

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.