ArticleJournal of diabetes science and technology2015
Effect of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Accuracy on Clinicians' Retrospective Decision Making in Diabetes: A Pilot Study.
Article in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Designing Decision-Support Technologies for Patient-Generated Data in Type 1 Diabetes.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in clinical decision making in diabetes could be limited by the inaccuracy of CGM data when compared to plasma glucose measurements. The aim of the present study is to investigate the impact of CGM numerical accuracy on the precision of diabetes treatment adjustments.
methodCGM profiles with maximum 5-day duration from 12 patients with type 1 diabetes treated with a basal-bolus insulin regimen were processed by 2 CGM algorithms, with the accuracy of algorithm 2 being higher than the accuracy of algorithm 1, using the median absolute relative difference (MARD) as the measure of accuracy. During 2 separate and similar occasions over a 1-month interval, 3 clinicians reviewed the processed CGM profiles, and adjusted the dose level of basal and prandial insulin. The precision of the dosage adjustments were defined in terms of the interclinician agreement and the intraclinician reproducibility of the decisions. The Cohen's kappa coefficient was used to assess the precision of the decisions. The study was based on retrospective and blind CGM data.
resultsFor the interclinician agreement, in the first occasion, the kappa of algorithm 1 was .32, and that of algorithm 2 was .36. For the interclinician agreement, in the second occasion, the kappas of algorithms 1 and 2 were .17 and .22, respectively. For the intraclinician reproducibility of the decisions, the kappas of algorithm 1 were .35, .22, and .80 and the kappas of algorithm 2 were .44, .52, and .32, for the 3 clinicians, respectively. For the interclinician agreement, the relative kappa change from algorithm 1 to algorithm 2 was 86.06%, and for the intraclinician reproducibility, the relative kappa change from algorithm 1 to algorithm 2 was 53.99%.
conclusionsResults indicated that the accuracy of CGM algorithms might potentially affect the precision of the CGM-based insulin adjustments for type 1 diabetes patients. However, a larger study with several clinical centers, with higher number of clinicians and patients is required to validate the impact of CGM accuracy on decisions precision.
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.