ArticleBMJ open sport & exercise medicine2025
Calibrating Dexcom G7 improves its performance in the context of repetitive recreational scuba diving in people with type 1 diabetes.
Article in BMJ open sport & exercise medicine, 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.
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
Background: The use of continuous glucose monitors (CGM) in scuba diving for patients with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) shows potential but faces challenges related to accuracy. Previous research has highlighted the poor accuracy of the Dexcom G7 (DG7) in repetitive diving contexts. This study investigates the impact of calibration on the accuracy of DG7, providing valuable insights for patients and clinicians. Materials and methods: In August 2024, 'Diabete Sommerso' organised a 4-day diving cruise around Elba Island (Italy) with 15 participants, including individuals with T1DM. Each participant with diabetes wore two DG7 sensors (one on the arm and one on the abdomen), calibrated daily and compared the results to capillary glucose (Beurer GL50Evo as the reference). Accuracy was assessed using mean absolute relative difference (MARD)/median ARD, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) integrated continuous glucose monitoring (iCGM) criteria and Surveillance Error Grid (SEG) analysis. Hypoglycaemia detection and trends were also evaluated. Results: Eight participants with T1DM completed the study using 16 DG7 sensors with no detachments or skin reactions. Analysis of 765 sensor-capillary glucose pairs during 68 dives showed an overall MARD of 13.7%, with arm sensors (11% MARD) outperforming abdomen sensors (16%, p=0.0001). SEG analysis revealed that more than 97% of readings fell within the no-risk zone; however, the FDA's iCGM criteria for non-adjunctive use were not met. Conclusions: Calibration improved the accuracy of DG7 in repetitive diving for patients with T1DM. However, capillary glucose checks remain essential, as non-adjunctive criteria were not met.
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.