Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32935561›Full record

Trial reportJournal of diabetes science and technology2022

Demonstrating the Clinical Impact of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Within an Integrated Healthcare Delivery System.

Brad Isaacson, Stephanie Kaufusi, Jeff Sorensen, Elizabeth Joy, Christopher Jones, Valerie Ingram, Nickolas Mark, Mike Phillips, Mark Briesacher

Open access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report 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 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Advances in Continuous Glucose Monitoring: Clinical Applications.Endocrinology and metabolism (Seoul, Korea) · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. A Podcast on the Use of CGM in Optimizing Type 2 Diabetes Management with Non-intensive Insulin Treatment in the Primary Care Setting.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2024
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. 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

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Brad IsaacsonIntermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7087-5273
Stephanie KaufusiIntermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Jeff SorensenNublu, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Elizabeth JoyIntermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Christopher JonesIntermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Valerie IngramIntermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Nickolas MarkIntermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Mike PhillipsIntermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Mark BriesacherIntermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Intermountain Healthcare · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundApproximately 30 million Americans currently suffer from diabetes, and nearly 55 million people will be impacted by 2030. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems help patients manage their care with real-time data. Although approximately 95% of those with diabetes suffer from type 2, few studies have measured CGM's clinical impact for this segment within an integrated healthcare system.

methodsA parallel randomized, multisite prospective trial was conducted using a new CGM device (Dexcom G6) compared to a standard of care finger stick glucometer (FSG) (Contour Next One). All participants received usual care in primary care clinics for six consecutive months while using these devices. Data were collected via electronic medical records, device outputs, exit surveys, and insurance company (SelectHealth) claims in accordance with institutional review board approval.

resultsNinety-nine patients were randomized for analysis ( DISCUSSION: Participants using CGM devices had meaningful improvements in clinical outcomes, costs, and self-reported measures compared to the FSG group. Although a larger study is necessary to confirm these results, CGM devices appear to improve patient outcomes while making treatment more affordable.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health Care, IntegratedDiabetes Mellitus, Type 1AgedBlood GlucoseBlood Glucose Self-MonitoringGlycated HemoglobinHumansMedicareProspective StudiesUnited StatesBlood GlucoseGlycated HemoglobinCGMcontinuous glucose monitoringdiabeteshealthcare

Identifiers

PMID32935561
PMCPMC8861781
OpenAlexW3087680982

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.