ArticleDiving and hyperbaric medicine2025
Safety and efficacy of continuous glucose monitoring devices in individuals with diabetes undergoing hyperbaric oxygen therapy: a scoping review.
Article in Diving and hyperbaric medicine, 2025. 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.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Continuous glucose monitoring devices (CGMs) have emerged as an effective approach to optimise glycaemic control for individuals living with diabetes mellitus. Despite CGMs offering improved patient satisfaction and quality of life, they have been primarily validated for outpatient and home use. This has posed a challenge for patients and providers who wish to incorporate CGMs into clinical settings such as hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT). Those with advanced diabetes mellitus who have diabetic foot ulcers that are refractory to treatment are among the most prevalent users of HBOT. However, those who prefer to use their CGM during HBOT face uncertainty regarding the accuracy and safety of their device under hyperbaric conditions. Methods: The product specifications of commonly used CGMs were collated. In addition, a scoping review of the literature was conducted where Medline, Embase, and Scopus were searched for reports that assess the accuracy or safety of CGMs in hyperbaric conditions. Results: The product specifications of commonly used CGMs by Dexcom, Abbott, Medtronic, and Senseonics demonstrate a maximum validated pressure of approximately 106 kPa (1.06 atmospheres absolute). Our literature search identified five reports, of which four focused on accuracy and one focused on safety of CGMs in hyperbaric conditions. Treatments were conducted in multiplace chambers and cumulatively described 39 participants, of whom 12 have diabetes. Although heterogeneous in nature, the reports generally supported the safety and accuracy of CGMs in hyperbaric conditions. Conclusions: The safety and accuracy of using CGMs during HBOT warrants further investigation. CGMs have not been validated for repeated exposure to hyperbaric conditions and should not be used in oxygen pressurised monoplace chambers until further safety data is available. We provide practical recommendations for use of CGMs in multiplace chambers.
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.