ArticleDiabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association2026
Sampling duration matters: Intraindividual variation of glycaemic metrics in type 1 diabetes using automated insulin delivery.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionUnderstanding intraindividual variability in glycaemic metrics among users of automated insulin delivery (AID) is essential for interpreting data from continuous glucose monitoring (CGM).
methodsCGM data over 56 days were collected from 142 individuals with type 1 diabetes using AID systems. Glycaemic metrics were derived from four 14-day periods and two 28-day periods.
resultsThe 95% limit of agreement for the difference between two measurements of time in range (TIR) from the same individual over 14-day periods was ±13.4%. The risk that two 14-day TIR values from the same individual differed by more than 5% points was 46.5%. If TIR was based on two 28-day periods, the 95% limit of agreement decreased to ±9.0%. The risk that two 28-day TIR values from the same individual differed by more than 5% points was 27.6%.
conclusionA 28-day CGM sampling period is recommended to minimise random variation and obtain more reliable glycaemic metrics.
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.