ArticleDiabetes spectrum : a publication of the American Diabetes Association2023
Trends in Time in Range-Related Publications and Clinical Trials: A Bibliometric Review.
Article in Diabetes spectrum : a publication of the American Diabetes Association, 2023. 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.
- CGM Accuracy in a Fragmented Regulatory Landscape: A Commentary on Harmonisation and Recent Evidence.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The goal of this article was to describe trends in publications (including conference abstracts) and clinical trials that report on glycemic time in range (TIR). Data sources: Reviewed databases included but were not limited to MEDLINE and Embase. Clinical trial registries were also sourced. Study selection: All studies reporting TIR published between 2010 and 2021 were included. Clinical trials reporting TIR that started in or after 2010 were also included. Non-English publications, abstracts, and clinical trials were excluded. Book chapters, nonhuman studies, and studies not reporting TIR were excluded. Data extraction: Manuscript/abstract category, publication year, study region, interventional versus observational role of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), and clinical trial start and completion dates were captured. Glycemic outcomes reported in publications or trials, including TIR as a primary outcome, A1C, time below range (TBR), and time above range (TAR), were also captured. Results: A total of 373 clinical trials, 531 publications, and 620 abstracts were included in the review. The number of trials, publications, and abstracts reporting TIR significantly increased, particularly between 2018 and 2021, during which time the number of clinical trials, publications, and conference abstracts reporting TIR increased by 6-fold, 12-fold, and 4.5-fold, respectively. About 35-44% of studies reported TIR as a primary outcome. Approximately 54% of clinical trials, 47% of publications, and 47% of conference abstracts reported the role of CGM to be observational. TBR was reported more often than TAR. Conclusion: The marked increase in the number of trials, publications, and abstracts reporting TIR highlights the increasing significance and acceptance of TIR as an outcome measure in diabetes management.
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.