Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37272495›Full record

ReviewJournal of diabetes science and technology2025

An Empirical Review of Key Glucose Monitoring Devices: Product Iterations and Patent Protection.

Jonathan J Darrow, Victor Van de Wiele, David Beran, Aaron S Kesselheim

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Jonathan J DarrowProgram On Regulation, Therapeutics, And Law, Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Victor Van de WieleProgram On Regulation, Therapeutics, And Law, Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5703-8809
David BeranDivision of Tropical and Humanitarian Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Aaron S KesselheimProgram On Regulation, Therapeutics, And Law, Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Brigham and Women's Hospital · USUniversity of Geneva · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionEach year, people with diabetes and their insurers or governments spend billions of dollars on blood glucose monitors and their associated components. These monitors have evolved substantially since their introduction in the 1970s, and manufacturers frequently protect original medical devices and their modifications by applying for and obtaining patent protection. RESEARCH DESIGN AND

methodsWe tracked the product iterations of five widely used blood glucose monitors-manufactured by LifeScan, Dexcom, Abbott, Roche, and Trividia-from information published by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and extracted relevant U.S. patents.

resultsWe found 384 products made by the five manufacturers of interest, including 130 devices cleared through the 510(k) pathway, 251 approved via the premarket approval (PMA) pathway or via PMA supplements, and three for which

conclusionsManufacturers of blood glucose monitoring systems frequently modified their devices and obtained patent protection related to these device modifications. The therapeutic value of these new modifications should be critically evaluated and balanced against their additional cost. Older glucose monitoring devices that were marketed in decades past are now in the public domain and no longer protected by patents. Newer devices will join them as their patents expire. Increased demand from people with diabetes and the health care system for older, off-patent devices would provide an incentive for the medical device industry to make these devices more widely available, enabling good care at lower cost when such devices are substantially equivalent in effectiveness and safety. In turn, availability and awareness of older, off-patent devices could help stimulate such demand.

Indexed as

Blood GlucoseBlood Glucose Self-MonitoringPatents as TopicDevice ApprovalDiabetes MellitusEquipment DesignHumansUnited StatesUnited States Food and Drug AdministrationBlood Glucosediabetesglucometerinsulinmedical devicespatents

Identifiers

PMID37272495
PMCPMC11688697
OpenAlexW4379375357

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.