Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34388953›Full record

ArticleJournal of diabetes science and technology2022

Healthcare Utilization, Costs, and Adverse Events of Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring versus Traditional Blood Glucose Monitoring Among US Adults with Type 1 Diabetes.

Benjamin Wong, Yalin Deng, Karen L Rascati

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 40% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Benjamin WongUniversity of Texas at Austin College of Pharmacy, Austin, TX, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2258-7925
Yalin DengUniversity of Texas at Austin College of Pharmacy, Austin, TX, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4358-8177
Karen L RascatiUniversity of Texas at Austin College of Pharmacy, Austin, TX, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9907-7670
The University of Texas at Austin · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare healthcare utilization, costs, and incidence of diabetes-specific adverse events (ie, hyperglycemia, diabetic ketoacidosis, and hypoglycemia) in type 1 diabetes adult patients using real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) versus traditional blood glucose monitoring (BG).

methodsAdult patients (≥18 years old) with type 1 diabetes in a large national administrative claims database between 2013 and 2015 were identified. rtCGM patients with 6-month continuous health plan enrollment and ≥1 pharmacy claim for insulin during pre-index and post-index periods were propensity-score matched with BG patients. Healthcare utilization associated with diabetic adverse events were examined. A difference-in-difference (DID) method was used to compare the change in costs between rtCGM and BG cohorts.

resultsSix-month medical costs for rtCGM patients (

conclusionsrtCGM users had non-significantly higher pre-post differences in medical costs but significantly higher pre-post differences in pharmacy costs (mostly due to the rtCGM costs themselves) compared to BG users. Changes in adverse events were minimal.

Indexed as

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1HyperglycemiaHypoglycemiaAdolescentAdultBlood GlucoseBlood Glucose Self-MonitoringHumansHypoglycemic AgentsPatient Acceptance of Health CareRetrospective StudiesBlood GlucoseHypoglycemic Agentsadministrative claims databasecontinuous glucose monitoringcostshealthcare utilizationtype 1 diabetes

Identifiers

PMID34388953
PMCPMC9631528
OpenAlexW3188811081

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.