ArticleDiving and hyperbaric medicine2021
Comparison of venous, capillary and interstitial blood glucose data measured during hyperbaric oxygen treatment from patients with diabetes mellitus.
Article in Diving and hyperbaric medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety and efficacy of continuous glucose monitoring devices in individuals with diabetes undergoing hyperbaric oxygen therapy: a scoping review.Diving and hyperbaric medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPatients undergoing hyperbaric oxygen treatments (HBOT) have been shown to experience a reduction in blood glucose (BG) levels during a treatment. This necessitates frequent assessment of BG levels. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) may represent an alternative to the current finger prick monitoring method in-chamber, however, continuous sensor glucose (SG) data has not been validated in situ. The aim was to determine the validity of continuous SG and intermittent BG monitoring with serum BG levels in diabetic patients during HBOT.
methodsMeasurements were obtained (finger prick [capillary sample], CGM [interstitial fluid], and serum [venous sample]) at baseline, and at 30, 60, 90 and 120 minutes during the hyperbaric treatment. Data were analysed by calculating intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and using mixed effects linear regression.
resultsThe ICC results (n = 10 patients) between the three methods indicated very high and statistically significant absolute agreement at baseline (pre-dive) (ICC = 0.90, 95% CI 0.74-0.97), at 30 minutes (ICC = 0.85, 95% CI 0.61-0.96), 60 minutes (ICC = 0.86, 95% CI 0.58-0.96), 90 minutes (ICC = 0.87, 96% CI 0.63-0.96) and 120 minutes (ICC = 0.90, 95% CI 0.70-0.97). Capillary glucose and CGM SG readings were each within 1 mmol·L-1 on average of the serum glucose reading, with multi-level linear regression finding the average difference between the CGM SG and capillary glucose methods of BG sampling was not statistically significant (P = 0.81).
conclusionsThe CGM SG data were comparable with glucose readings from capillary monitoring. Both CGM and capillary data were consistent with serum values.
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.