ReviewJournal of diabetes investigation2012
Continuous glucose monitoring system: Is it really accurate, safe and clinically useful?
Review in Journal of diabetes investigation, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of treatment guidance using a retrospective continuous glucose monitoring system on glycaemic control in outpatients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A randomized controlled trial.The Journal of international medical research · 2016Trial
- Glucose as a Biomarker for Stress in Firefighters.Journal of occupational and environmental medicine · 2026Article
- Studying the heterogeneity of gestational diabetes mellitus: cardio-metabolic alteration and treatment response in a multi-ethnic population in Singapore (GDM-CARE): a study protocol.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Pre-cooling with ingesting a high-carbohydrate ice slurry on thermoregulatory responses and subcutaneous interstitial fluid glucose during heat exposure.Journal of physiological anthropology · 2022Article
- Association of time in range with hemoglobin A1c, glycated albumin and 1,5-anhydro-d-glucitol.Journal of diabetes investigation · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The continuous glucose monitoring system (CGM) has been used for constant checking of glucose level by measuring interstitial glucose concentrations, since the early days of the 21st century. It can potentially improve diabetes care if used carefully with the understanding of the characteristics of this system. Although there is a time lag of approximately 5-15 min between blood and interstitial glucose levels, the system is considered the most suitable device for meticulous glucose control and prevention of hypoglycemia. A large number of studies have examined its accuracy, safety and clinical effectiveness. The continuous glucose-error grid analysis (CG-EGA), designed by WL Clarke, evaluates the clinical accuracy of CGM. It examines 'temporal' characteristics of the data, analyzing pairs of reference and sensor readings as a process in time represented by a 'bidimensional' time series and taking into account inherent physiological time lags. Investment in CG-EGA is clearly meaningful, even though there are other methodologies for evaluation. The use of each method complementarily is the most effective way to prove the accuracy of the device. The device has improved gradually, and real-time CGM, which allows real-time monitoring of blood glucose level, is already available commercially. The use of real-time CGM could potentially lead to over- or undertreatment with insulin. Patient education through proper and effective handling of the new device is essential to improve diabetes care. (J Diabetes Invest, doi: 10.1111/j.2040-1124.2012.00197.x, 2012).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.