ArticleEndocrine2025
Validation of a predictive calculator for optimal glycemic control and time-in-tight-range following CGM sensor placement in type 1 diabetes and pancreatic diabetes: a prospective study.
Article in Endocrine, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundContinuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has improved diabetes management, yet not all patients benefit equally. We previously developed a predictive calculator using clinical and socioeconomic variables to estimate the likelihood of achieving optimal control after CGM initiation. This study prospectively validated the calculator in a real-world cohort.
methodsA single-center prospective study included 102 adults with type 1 or pancreatic diabetes using multiple daily insulin injections, followed for three months. Optimal control was defined as time in range (TIR, 70-180 mg/dL) > 70% and time below range (TBR, <70 mg/dL) < 4%. Model performance was assessed using ROC analysis and correlation tests.
resultsOf 102 participants, 85 completed follow-up (median age: 53.6 years; 48% women; median diabetes duration: 12.9 years; baseline HbA1c: 7.6%). Thirty-three (38.8%) achieved optimal control. The calculator showed moderate discrimination (AUC = 0.639) and significant correlations with TIR (p = 0.230, p = 0.023) and time in tight range (TITR, 70-140 mg/dL) (p = 0.271, p = 0.019). Overall accuracy was 61.9%, lower than in the original cohort. Smoking predicted non-completion (p = 0.038).
conclusionsThe calculator shows moderate accuracy in predicting glycemic control and TITR after CGM initiation. CGM adherence remains a challenge, warranting further study in publicly funded healthcare settings.
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.