Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20513321›Full record

ArticleJournal of diabetes science and technology2010

Impact of blood glucose self-monitoring errors on glucose variability, risk for hypoglycemia, and average glucose control in type 1 diabetes: an in silico study.

Marc D Breton, Boris P Kovatchev

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

56 citing papers in PubMed, 101 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose as an Integral Part in the Management of People with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Accuracy and User Performance of a New Blood Glucose Monitoring System.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2021
    Article
  12. Diabetes Technology Meeting 2020.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2021
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Modeling of Diabetes and Its Clinical Impact.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2018
    Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Marc D BretonUniversity of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia 22908-4888 , USA. mb6nt@virginia.edu
Boris P Kovatchev
University of Virginia · US

Funding

Improving intensive insulin therapy through the personalization of data-driven decision support system to patients’ goals and preferences and its adaptation to long term health needsR01DK051562 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA CHARLOTTESVILLE · PI MARC D BRETON, Chiara Fabris · 1996 to 2026
$9.4M
NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK051562NIDDK NIH HHS R01DK 51562
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical trials assessing the impact of errors in self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) on the quality of glycemic control in diabetes are inherently difficult to execute. Consequently, the objectives of this study were to employ realistic computer simulation based on a validated model of the human metabolic system and to provide potentially valuable information about the relationships among SMBG errors, risk for hypoglycemia, glucose variability, and long-term glycemic control.

methodsSixteen thousand computer simulation trials were conducted using 100 simulated adults with type 1 diabetes. Each simulated subject was used in four simulation experiments aiming to assess the impact of SMBG errors on detection of hypoglycemia (experiment 1), risk for hypoglycemia (experiment 2), glucose variability (experiment 3), and long-term average glucose control, i.e., estimated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c)(experiment 4). Each experiment was repeated 10 times at each of four increasing levels of SMBG errors: 5, 10, 15, and 20% deviation from the true blood glucose value.

resultsWhen the permitted SMBG error increased from 0 to 5-10% to 15-20%-the current level allowed by International Organization for Standardization 15197-(1) the probability for missing blood glucose readings of 60 mg/dl increased from 0 to 0-1% to 3.5-10%; (2) the incidence of hypoglycemia, defined as reference blood glucose <or=70 mg/dl, changed from 0 to 0-0% to 0.1-5.5%; (3) glucose variability increased as well, as indicated by control variability grid analysis; and (4) the incidence of hypoglycemia increased from 15.0 to 15.2-18.8% to 22-25.6%. When compensating for this increase, glycemic control deteriorated with HbA1c increasing gradually from 7.00 to 7.01-7.12% to 7.26-7.40%.

conclusionsA number of parameters of glycemic control deteriorated substantially with the increase of permitted SMBG errors, as revealed by a series of computer simulations (e.g., in silico) experiments. A threshold effect apparent between 10 and 15% permitted SMBG error for most parameters, except for HbA1c, which appeared to be increasing relatively linearly with increasing SMBG error above 10%.

Indexed as

Computer SimulationBlood GlucoseBlood Glucose Self-MonitoringDiabetes Mellitus, Type 1HumansHypoglycemiaRisk FactorsSelf AdministrationBlood Glucose

Identifiers

PMID20513321
PMCPMC2901032
OpenAlexW2124281539

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.