Observational studyJournal of diabetes science and technology2025
An Observational Crossover Study of People Using Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitors Versus Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose: Real-World Evidence Using Electronic Medical Record Data From More Than 12,000 People With Type 1 Diabetes.
Observational study in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Health Technology Assessment of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems for Paediatric Patients.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Implementation and Evaluation of a Best Practice Advisory to Reduce Inequities in Technology Use for People With Type 1 Diabetes: Protocol for a Mixed Methods, Nonrandomized Controlled Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- Early Continuous Glucose Monitor Use in Children and Adolescents With Type 1 Diabetes: Rates of Initiation and Impact on Glycemic Outcomes.Diabetes care · 2025Observational
- Technology and health inequities in diabetes care: How do we widen access to underserved populations and utilize technology to improve outcomes for all?Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 10 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe used real-world electronic health record (EHR) data to examine HbA1c levels among children and adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) who are classified as continuous glucose monitor (CGM) users after T1D diagnosis and switch to self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) during follow-up, versus people who opt for SMBG after T1D diagnosis and switch to CGM during follow-up visits.
methodsWe conducted an observational, case-crossover study using electronic medical record (EMR) data from the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative. The primary outcome in this study was HbA1c. Baseline HbA1c levels were taken at the index date, corresponding to initial device classification, and compared with HbA1c value recorded at the clinic visit following device switch.
resultsOf all patients classified in the SMBG group, 7,706 switched to CGM use within the 5-year study time frame, and 5,123 of all initial CGM users switched to SMBG within the study time frame and were included in this analysis. At baseline, median (interquartile range [IQR]) HbA1c for SMBG use was 8.1 (2.4), whereas postcrossover to CGM use, there was a decline in median (IQR) levels to 7.7 (1.9) (
conclusionWe found that people who switched to CGM use had significantly improved HbA1c levels compared to those who switched to glucose monitoring with SMBG.
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.