ArticleCureus2024
Cost-Effectiveness of Inpatient Continuous Glucose Monitoring.
Article in Cureus, 2024. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Beyond HbA1c: A CGM-centred three-pillar framework for glycaemic variability in pre-diabetes and type 2 diabetes.Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Our department conducted a retrospective cohort study to compare the efficacy of continuous glucose monitoring devices versus capillary blood glucose in the glycemic control of inpatient type 2 diabetes on intensive insulin therapy in a Portuguese hospital. The use of continuous glucose monitoring devices was associated with improved glycemic control, including an increased number of glucose readings within target range and reduced hyperglycemic events, being safe concerning hypoglycemias. This is the cost-effectiveness analysis associated with these results. Aim The primary objective was to compare the cost-effectiveness of achieving glycemic control, defined as the number of patients within glycemic goals, between groups. Secondary endpoints included cost-effectiveness analyses of each time in range goal, and each percentual increment in time in range. Methods We defined each glycemic goal as: "readings within range (70-180 mg/dL) >70%", "readings below range (below 70 mg/dL) <4%", "severe hypoglycemia (below 54 mg/dL) <1%", "readings above range (above 180 mg/dL) <25%", "very high glycemic readings (above 250 mg/dL) <5%". Results Continuous glucose monitoring showed lower median cost per effect for the primary outcome (€11.1 vs. €34.9/patient), with lower cost for readings in range (€7.8 vs. €11.6/patient) and for both readings above range goals ("above 180mg/dL": €7.4 vs. €9.9/patient, and "above 250mg/dL": €6.9 vs. €17.4/patient). Conclusions There are no published data regarding the cost-effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring devices in inpatient settings. Our results show that continuous glucose monitoring devices were associated with an improved glycemic control, at a lower cost, and endorse the feasibility of incorporating these devices into hospital settings, presenting a favorable cost-effective option compared to capillary blood glucose.
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.