ArticleJournal of diabetes science and technology2017
A Comparison of Time Delay in Three Continuous Glucose Monitors for Adolescents and Adults.
Article 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 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.
- International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes Clinical Practice Consensus Guidelines 2024 Diabetes Technologies: Glucose Monitoring.Hormone research in paediatrics · 2024Guideline
- Lag Time Remains with Newer Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring Technology During Aerobic Exercise in Adults Living with Type 1 Diabetes.Diabetes technology & therapeutics · 2019Trial
- Empowering digital health management with on-device large language models for glucose prediction: a model development and validation study.EBioMedicine · 2026Article
- A pilot study testing a continuous glucose monitoring sensor in lean growing pigs fed contrasting diets, to document nocturnal and diurnal glycemic excursions as well as their relationships.Veterinary and animal science · 2026Review
- Outcomes of Diabetes Management with Continuous Glucose Monitoring Technology.Archives of internal medicine research · 2026Article
- Characterizing glucose in labor: Continuous glucose monitoring in parturients without diabetes.Pregnancy (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2025Article
- Assessing Dynamic Cognitive Function in the Daily Lives of Youths With and Without Type 1 Diabetes: Usability Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Myths and methodologies: Assessing glycaemic control and associated regulatory mechanisms in human physiology research.Experimental physiology · 2024Review
- Clinical Performance Evaluation of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems: A Scoping Review and Recommendations for Reporting.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2023Article
- ISPAD Clinical Practice Consensus Guidelines 2022: Diabetes technologies: Glucose monitoring.Pediatric diabetes · 2022Article
- Practical aspects of diabetes technology use: Continuous glucose monitors, insulin pumps, and automated insulin delivery systems.Journal of clinical & translational endocrinology · 2022Article
- Recent Advances in Wearable Optical Sensor Automation Powered by Battery versus Skin-like Battery-Free Devices for Personal Healthcare-A Review.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Products for Monitoring Glucose Levels in the Human Body With Noninvasive Optical, Noninvasive Fluid Sampling, or Minimally Invasive Technologies.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2022Review
- Glucose Concentrations from Continuous Glucose Monitoring Devices Compared to Those from Blood Plasma during an Oral Glucose Tolerance Test in Healthy Young Adults.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Accuracy of a flash glucose monitoring system in cats and determination of the time lag between blood glucose and interstitial glucose concentrations.Journal of veterinary internal medicine · 2021Article
- Article
- A Comprehensive Review of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Accuracy during Exercise Periods.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Analysis of "Simple Post-Processing of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Measurements Improves Endpoints in Clinical Trials".Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2020Article
- Simple Post-Processing of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Measurements Improves Endpoints in Clinical Trials.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2020Article
- Infrared measurements of glucose in peritoneal fluid with a tuneable quantum cascade laser.Biomedical optics express · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe physiologic delay in glucose diffusion from the blood to the interstitial fluid and instrumental factors contribute to the delay between changes in plasma glucose (PG) and measurements made by continuous glucose monitors (CGMs). This study compared the duration of this delay for three CGMs.
methodsA total of 24 healthy adolescent and adult subjects with type 1 diabetes wore three CGM devices simultaneously for 48 hours: Dexcom G4 Platinum, Abbott Navigator, and Medtronic Enlite. The time delay between PG and CGM-estimated plasma glucose (CGMG) was estimated by comparing time-shifted CGMG with reference PG taken every 15 minutes.
resultsThe delay estimated by our approach was larger for the Navigator than for the G4 Platinum in adolescents (7.7 ± 1.1 versus 5.6 ± 0.9 min, P = .0396) and adults (10.9 ± 1.1 versus 8.1 ± 0.7 min, P = .0107). The delay was nominally longer for the Navigator than for the Enlite in both the adolescent (7.7 ± 1.1 versus 4.3 ± 1.0 min, P = .0728) and adult (10.9 ± 1.1 versus 8.3 ± 0.9 min, P = .111) populations, but these differences were not statistically significant. There was no difference in the delay between G4 Platinum and Enlite. Adolescents had shorter delays than adults for all three devices. There was a significant correlation between longer delay and increasing age for the G4 Platinum and Navigator.
conclusionsThere are differences in the estimated PG to CGMG time delays between CGM devices in the same subjects. The delay between PG and CGMG is smaller for adolescents than for adults. The PG-to-CGMG time delay is influenced by both instrument and host factors.
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.