Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32206014›Full record

ArticleClinical medicine insights. Endocrinology and diabetes2020

Acceptability of the FreeStyle Libre Flash Glucose Monitoring System: The Experience of Young Patients With Type 1 Diabetes.

Ayman A Al Hayek, Asirvatham A Robert, Mohamed A Al Dawish

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical medicine insights. Endocrinology and diabetes, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Flash Glucose Monitoring and Patient Satisfaction: A Meta-Review of Systematic Reviews.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Review
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ayman A Al HayekDepartment of Endocrinology and Diabetes, Diabetes Treatment Center, Prince Sultan Military Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3483-3196
Asirvatham A RobertDepartment of Endocrinology and Diabetes, Diabetes Treatment Center, Prince Sultan Military Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Mohamed A Al DawishDepartment of Endocrinology and Diabetes, Diabetes Treatment Center, Prince Sultan Military Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Riyadh Armed Forces Hospital · SA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the current era of modern technology, the development of smart devices such as the flash glucose monitoring (FGM) systems helps patients with diabetes to effortlessly monitor their glucose levels more frequently. In this study, we determine the user acceptability of FGM among young patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

methodsA cross-sectional study was performed among 67 young patients with T1D in the age group of 13 to 19 years and who were managed on the FGM method for self-testing the glucose levels for a minimum of 6 months. The participants acceptability measures that were collected with a standard questionnaire and where they rated their experience with the system on a scale of 1 (strongly agree/painless) to 5 (strongly disagree/severe pain). In addition to the demographic and clinical parameters, a closed/structured questionnaire was administered, in order to record the prior and present skin issues, over a 6-month period.

resultsFrom the patient statements regarding sensor application, 95.5% of the study population strongly agreed that the sensor application caused less pain than the routine finger-stick. Similarly, 85% of the users strongly agreed that using the sensor was comfortable, while 94% strongly agreed that they found the small size of the FGM made it easy to wear, 47.8% strongly agreed that wearing the sensor did not attract attention, 70.1% reported no discomfort under the skin, 80.6% stated that the sensor could be scanned without anyone noticing it, 89.6% felt that the sensor did not affect their daily activities, 91% strongly agreed that the sensor was very compatible with their lifestyle, 79.1% reported ease with taking a glucose reading with the scan, 89.6% reported that taking glucose readings with this system would not disrupt their daily activities, and 76.1% participants were excited to share with other individuals their experiences with this system. A comparison of the self-monitoring of blood glucose and freestyle techniques demonstrated that 83.6% participants strongly agreed that it was less painful to get glucose readings from the freestyle sensor, and that it was a more discreet (83.6%), more comfortable (85.1%), easier (95.5%), faster (82.1%), simpler (79.1%), more private (88.1%), and less stressful (77.6%) method, with minimal hassle (74.6%). It is notable here that 86.6% of the participants reported absolutely no pain when the freestyle sensor was applied; also, the majority of the participants (91%) reported no pain symptoms when scanning the sensor.

conclusionThe findings of this study clearly showed that the study population had a high level of acceptability of the FGM.

Indexed as

Acceptabilitydiabetes treatmentflash glucose monitoringFreeStyle Libreskin adverse eventstype 1 diabetes

Identifiers

PMID32206014
PMCPMC7076574
OpenAlexW3010951852

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.