ArticleDiabetes technology & therapeutics2026
Pediatric Inpatient Continuous Glucose Monitor Accuracy by Sensor Wear Day, Hospital Day, and Glucose Rate of Change.
Article in Diabetes technology & therapeutics, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundContinuous glucose monitoring (CGM) improves glycemic outcomes but inpatient use in the United States is not FDA approved, despite the potential need for frequent glycemic monitoring during hospitalization. We sought to assess CGM accuracy in the pediatric hospital setting and to evaluate the impact of potential modifiers of accuracy, including sensor wear day, hospitalization day, and glucose changes.
methodsIn this retrospective cross-sectional accuracy study among youth and young adults with diabetes hospitalized at two pediatric centers, reference point-of-care (POC) capillary glucose values were compared with Dexcom G7 CGM glucose readings (paired within 5 min). Accuracy was assessed using standard metrics, including mean absolute relative difference (MARD) and Parkes error grids, overall, and stratified by sensor wear day, hospital day, and CGM glucose rate of change.
resultsWe analyzed 544 POC-CGM glucose pairs from 68 participants with diabetes aged 2-22 years (mean 12.4 ± 5.8 years old, 58.8% female, 66.2% White, 8.8% Hispanic) during 80 hospital encounters. The overall MARD was 12.5%. Accuracy was comparable on sensor wear day 1 and days 2-6 (MARD 12.3% vs 13.6%, respectively) and was best on wear days 7-10 (MARD 10.6%). Accuracy improved from hospital day 1 (MARD 13.7%) to hospital days 2-4 and 5-30 (MARD 10.4% and 12.5%, respectively). Overall and on wear day 1, almost all glucose pairs (99%) fell within low-risk Parkes error grid zones A and B. Accuracy was best with a flat [-1 to 1 mg/(dL·min)] rate of change (MARD 11.5%-11.9%) and was reduced with rapidly rising or falling [beyond -2 or 2 mg/(dL·min)] CGM values (MARD 16.6%-18.4%).
conclusionsIn this pediatric hospital CGM accuracy study, MARD was within a favorable range of <14% overall and throughout sensor wear and hospitalization. Reduced accuracy with rapidly changing glucose highlights the need to incorporate trend arrows into hospital CGM protocols.
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.