Trial reportJournal of diabetes science and technology2017
Use of an Integrated Tool for Interpretation of Blood Glucose Data Improves Correctness of Glycemic Risk Assessment in Individuals With Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes.
Trial report in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development for Probiotics Based Insulin Delivery System.Current issues in molecular biology · 2025Article
- User Performance Evaluation and System Accuracy Assessment of Four Blood Glucose Monitoring Systems With Color Coding of Measurement Results.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundManufacturers now incorporate blood glucose (bG) value interpretation tools into their monitoring systems; however, usability of these support tools has not been well studied. We evaluated the utility and perceived benefits of support tool use by individuals with type 1 (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D).
methodsThis 3-arm, randomized, simulation study assessed the impact of use of bG value interpretation support tools on participants' ability to correctly interpret bG values, using 1 of 3 tools: a new tool that uses colored scales with target range indicator (TRI), Colors and Smiley icons (already available). Participants assessed 50 bG values without use of any tool and repeated the assessment using 1 of the 3 tool configurations. Changes in percentage of correct responses when using a support tool and user perceptions were assessed.
resultsData sets from 140 participants were analyzed. Increases in correct responses were seen in all study groups but most notably in the TRI group (26%, P < .001) versus the Colors (3%, P = .018) and Smiley icons (6%, P < .001) groups. Significant improvements in confidence were seen among TRI users ( P = .023) but not among other tool users ( P > .627). Most TRI users felt confident (94%), agreed the tool will help them identify high and low values (96%) and will help them to make correct insulin dosage decisions (80%).
conclusionsUse of the TRI significantly increases users' ability to correctly and confidently determine their glycemic risk when self-monitoring bG levels. This suggests the tool may offer clinical value to individuals with T1D and T2D.
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.