Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37254011›Full record

ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2023

Rates and Correlates of Uptake of Continuous Glucose Monitors Among Adults with Type 2 Diabetes in Primary Care and Endocrinology Settings.

Lindsay S Mayberry, Charmin Guy, Chase D Hendrickson, Allison B McCoy, Tom Elasy

Registry-linked trialOpen access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07548372 (Supporting Primary Care Adoption, Resources, and Knowledge for Continuous Glucose Monitoring), which is not on this map. Cited by 42 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
11.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

NCT07548372 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Supporting Primary Care Adoption, Resources, and Knowledge for Continuous Glucose Monitoring

TypeinterventionalSponsorMontefiore Medical CenterRan2026 to 2028Enrolled20,000ConditionsDiabetes MellitusArmsEnhanced CGM Interventions, Standard of Care
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

42 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 59 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. What's New and Around the Corner in CGM?Federal practitioner : for the health care professionals of the VA, DoD, and PHS · 2025
    Article
  20. Article
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lindsay S MayberryDivision of General Internal Medicine and Public Health, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA. lindsay.mayberry@vumc.org.ORCID 0000-0002-0654-4151
Charmin GuySchool of Medicine, University of Mississippi, Jackson, MS, USA.
Chase D HendricksonDivision of Diabetes, Endocrinology, and Metabolism, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA.
Allison B McCoyDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA.
Tom ElasyDivision of General Internal Medicine and Public Health, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA.
Vanderbilt University Medical Center · USUniversity of Mississippi · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical trials indicate continuous glucose monitor (CGM) use may benefit adults with type 2 diabetes, but CGM rates and correlates in real-world care settings are unknown.

objectiveWe sought to ascertain prevalence and correlates of CGM use and to examine rates of new CGM prescriptions across clinic types and medication regimens.

designRetrospective cohort using electronic health records in a large academic medical center in the Southeastern US.

participantsAdults with type 2 diabetes and a primary care or endocrinology visit during 2021. MAIN MEASURES: Age, gender, race, ethnicity, insurance, clinic type, insulin regimen, hemoglobin A1c values, CGM prescriptions, and prescribing clinic type. KEY

resultsAmong 30,585 adults with type 2 diabetes, 13% had used a CGM. CGM users were younger and more had private health insurance (p < .05) as compared to non-users; 72% of CGM users had an intensive insulin regimen, but 12% were not taking insulin. CGM users had higher hemoglobin A1c values (both most recent and most proximal to the first CGM prescription) than non-users. CGM users were more likely to receive endocrinology care than non-users, but 23% had only primary care visits in 2021. For each month in 2021, a mean of 90.5 (SD 12.5) people started using CGM. From 2020 to 2021, monthly rates of CGM prescriptions to new users grew 36% overall, but 125% in primary care. Most starting CGM in endocrinology had an intensive insulin regimen (82% vs. 49% starting in primary care), whereas 28% starting CGM in primary care were not using insulin (vs. 5% in endocrinology).

conclusionCGM uptake for type 2 diabetes is increasing rapidly, with most growth in primary care. These trends present opportunities for healthcare system adaptations to support CGM use and related workflows in primary care to support growth in uptake.

Indexed as

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2HypoglycemiaAdultBlood GlucoseBlood Glucose Self-MonitoringGlycated HemoglobinHumansHypoglycemic AgentsInsulinPrimary Health CareRetrospective StudiesBlood GlucoseGlycated HemoglobinHypoglycemic AgentsInsulinblood glucosecontinuous glucose monitoringtype 2 diabetes mellitus

Identifiers

PMID37254011
PMCPMC10228889
OpenAlexW4378781361

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.