ArticleDiabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association2026
Decision accuracy of simultaneously used real-time CGM versus intermittently scanned CGM around exercise in type 1 diabetes: A secondary analysis of the ULTRAFLEXI-1 study.
Article in Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association, 2026. 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsContinuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems have become important technologies to improve glycaemia in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D). However, it has been shown that during rapid glucose change, sensor performance can deteriorate. Comparative data on sensor performance during high rates of glucose change, such as during exercise, between a real-time continuous glucose monitor (rtCGM) and an intermittently scanned continuous monitor (isCGM) remain limited.
methodsTwenty-two people with T1D (8 women, age 42 ± 11 years, HbA
resultsDuring exercise, the MedARD was 14.6% [7.0;23.8] for rtCGM (2304 comparison points) vs. 11.6% [5.6;19.6] for isCGM (2266 comparison points) (p < 0.0001). When stratified by glycaemic range, the MedARD was 39.2% [31.8;46.8] vs. 27.0% [17.0;34.6] for time below range (<70 mg/dL) (p = 0.0001), 16.1% [8.1;24.8] vs. 12.8% [6.4;20.4] for time in range (70-180 mg/dL) (p < 0.0001) and 9.5% [4.7;16.0] vs. 8.0% [3.8;13.7] for time above range (>180 mg/dL) (p = 0.0064) for rtCGM vs. isCGM.
conclusionIn this head-to-head comparison of rtCGM and isCGM, isCGM demonstrated superior performance during exercise in adults with T1D.
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.