ArticleJournal of diabetes science and technology2022
An Analysis of 2019 FDA Adverse Events for Two Insulin Pumps and Two Continuous Glucose Monitors.
Article in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Adverse Event Causes From 2022 for Four Continuous Glucose Monitors.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2025Article
- Continuous Glucose Deviation Interval and Variability Analysis (CG-DIVA): A Novel Approach for the Statistical Accuracy Assessment of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2024Article
- Insulin Pump-Associated Adverse Events in a Brazilian Reference Center for the Treatment of Diabetes Mellitus: Proposal for a Taxonomy of Device Failures in Adults, Adolescents, and Children.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2024Article
- Analysis of "Multicenter Evaluation Study Comparing a New Factory-Calibrated Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring System to Existing Flash Glucose Monitoring System".Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2023Article
- Adverse Event Data for Years 2018 to 2020 for Diabetes Devices.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
US Food and Drug Administration adverse event data for 2019 were analyzed for two insulin pumps and two continuous glucose monitors (CGMs). The analyses were selective-they were guided by the text described in the adverse events. They included (1) percent using auto mode for the Medtronic 670G pump, (2) distributions of hyper and hypo glucose values for Medtronic and Tandem pumps, (3) a Parkes error grid for Dexcom CGM vs glucose meter when the complaint was inaccuracy, and (4) the most frequent events for Abbott Freestyle. We found that for the 670G pump, there were more hypo events when auto mode was on than when auto mode was off. With Dexcom CGMs, users complained about inaccurate result when most results were in the B zone. With the Abbott Freestyle, the most frequent adverse event was an allergic skin reaction.
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.