ArticleJournal of diabetes investigation2020
Flash glucose monitoring in type 1 diabetes: A comparison with self-monitoring blood glucose.
Article in Journal of diabetes investigation, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Improved time in range and postprandial hyperglycemia with canagliflozin in combination with teneligliptin: Secondary analyses of the CALMER study.Journal of diabetes investigation · 2021Trial
- Evaluation of the Accuracy of FreeStyle Libre 2 for Glucose Monitoring in White New Zealand Rabbits.Veterinary medicine and science · 2025Article
- Clinical Performance Evaluation of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems: A Scoping Review and Recommendations for Reporting.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2023Article
- Performance of the FreeStyle Libre Flash Glucose Monitoring System during an Oral Glucose Tolerance Test and Exercise in Healthy Adolescents.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors reduce day-to-day glucose variability in patients with type 1 diabetes.Journal of diabetes investigation · 2021Observational
- Flash glucose monitoring in type 1 diabetes: A comparison with self-monitoring blood glucose.Journal of diabetes investigation · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
AIMS/
introductionA flash glucose monitoring (FGM) system has become available. To clarify the relationship between FGM and self-monitoring blood glucose (SMBG) values, we compared the two values after simultaneous measurement in Japanese patients with type 1 diabetes, under daily life settings. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 20 outpatients with type 1 diabetes were analyzed. When FGM and SMBG were carried out simultaneously (within ±3 min), the values were adopted and each FGM value was matched and compared with the corresponding SMBG value. In addition, we analyzed other cases of simultaneity defined as "within ±2 min," "within ±1 min" and "at the exact same time."
resultsThe percentage of SMBG and FGM values in the clinically acceptable zone A + B in Clarke and consensus error grid analyses were 97.9 and 99.2%, respectively. Deming regression (x-axis: FGM values, y-axis: SMBG values) determined a slope of 0.9128 (95% confidence interval 0.9008-0.9247) and an intercept of +15.94 mg/dL (95% confidence interval 14.05-17.84). FGM values were lower than SMBG values in the lower glucose range, and higher in the higher glucose range. The shorter the time lag between measurements, the higher the rate of concordance between FGM and SMBG values.
conclusionsThe results of this study provided evidence on the reliability of FGM in Japanese patients with type 1 diabetes in home conditions. Based on the results, if an abnormal glucose value is detected by FGM, SBMG should then be used to confirm the result.
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.