Observational studyGeriatrics & gerontology international2019
Assessing hypoglycemia frequency using flash glucose monitoring in older Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes receiving oral hypoglycemic agents.
Observational study in Geriatrics & gerontology international, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Continuous glucose monitoring devices in people over 65 years: literature review].Farmaceuticos comunitarios · 2024Pooled it
- Potentially Inappropriate Medication and Associated Factors Among Older Patients with Chronic Coronary Syndrome at Hospital Discharge in Beijing, China.Clinical interventions in aging · 2021Article
- Assessing hypoglycemia frequency using flash glucose monitoring in older Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes receiving oral hypoglycemic agents.Geriatrics & gerontology international · 2019Observational
- Real-world study of flash glucose monitoring among adults with type 2 diabetes within the Swedish National Diabetes Register.Diabetes & vascular disease researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimIt is important to consider hypoglycemia for glycemic control in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes. Continuous blood glucose monitoring system is an effective method to investigate blood glucose fluctuation. This study examined hypoglycemia frequency using continuous blood glucose monitoring system in older patients with type 2 diabetes.
methodsA total of 70 patients with type 2 diabetes aged >65 years, receiving oral treatment only and having a glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level of <8% were enrolled. Flash glucose monitoring system was used for the device. Patients were classified into three groups according to the type of medicine administered, in addition to other oral hypoglycemics, and were compared: (i) those taking sulfonylureas (SU); (ii) those taking glinides; and (iii) those who did not take either SU or glinides.
resultsThere was a significant positive correlation between the coefficient of variation and hypoglycemic frequency in all the patients, and a significant negative correlation between HbA1c and hypoglycemia in those receiving SU. When hypoglycemia was defined as glucose levels <54 mg/dL and <70 mg/dL, the cut-off HbA1c values for developing hypoglycemia were 6.3% and 6.7%, sensitivity was 75.0% and 76.2%, and specificity was 90.9% and 77.6%, respectively.
conclusionsIn older patients with type 2 diabetes receiving SU, hypoglycemic frequency increases with decreases in HbA1c level. In particular, in patients with HbA1c levels of <6.3% receiving SU, it is necessary to consider medication modification. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2019; 19: 1030-1035.
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.