ArticleDiabetes, obesity & metabolism2025
Contributions of intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring frequency and bolus insulin dosing on time in range: Analysis of data from CGM and connected insulin pens.
Article in Diabetes, obesity & metabolism, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Technology in Diabetes: A Year in Review.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2026Review
- Contributions of intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring frequency and bolus insulin dosing on time in range: Analysis of data from CGM and connected insulin pens.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2025Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsIntegration of data from continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and connected insulin pens allows us to investigate their use to optimise glucose control. This study examines how insulin bolus frequency reported by connected pens and frequency of glucose scans by an intermittently-scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) system relate to glycaemic control in a population of real-world European users.
methodsData from glucose sensors and connected insulin pens were aggregated for LibreView users who integrated their connected pen by January 1, 2024. The most recent 90-day window with ≥30 days' glucose data and ≥15 days of insulin bolus doses following their integration date was analysed. We stratified users by categories of average isCGM scan frequency: low (<6.1 scans/day), medium (6.1-14.0 scans/day) or high (>14.0 scans/day), and average bolus frequency: low (<3.1 boluses/day), medium (3.1-6.7 boluses/day) or high (>6.7 boluses/day).
resultsData from 10,993 users was available over 80.6 days/user. Median scans/day were 9.3 [6.1-14.0] and median bolus/day was 4.5 [3.1-6.7]. Increased daily scans were associated with greater time in range (TIR) 70-180 mg/dL (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) within each of the low, medium, and high bolus frequency groups. Increased bolus frequency was associated with increased TIR in the lowest scanning frequency group. Similar outcomes were observed for time above range (TAR) and glycaemic variability.
conclusionsWhile glucose monitoring frequency and insulin bolus dosing are both indicators of engagement with diabetes self-management, higher TIR has a closer association with increased rates of user engagement with isCGM than with increased rates of bolus dosing.
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.