Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38477308›Full record

ReviewJournal of diabetes science and technology2024

A Critical Discussion of Alert Evaluations in the Context of Continuous Glucose Monitoring System Performance.

Stefan Pleus, Manuel Eichenlaub, Delia Waldenmaier, Guido Freckmann

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Optimizing Continuous Glucose Monitoring Adoption in India: From Current Challenges to Future Solutions.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2026
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

4 authors.

Stefan PleusInstitut für Diabetes-Technologie, Forschungs- und Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH an der Universität Ulm, Ulm, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4629-7754
Manuel EichenlaubInstitut für Diabetes-Technologie, Forschungs- und Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH an der Universität Ulm, Ulm, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2150-3160
Delia WaldenmaierInstitut für Diabetes-Technologie, Forschungs- und Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH an der Universität Ulm, Ulm, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3280-2369
Guido FreckmannInstitut für Diabetes-Technologie, Forschungs- und Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH an der Universität Ulm, Ulm, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0406-9529

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems provide functionality which alerts users of potentially unwanted glycemic conditions. These alerts can include glucose threshold alerts to call the user's attention to hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia, predictive alerts warning about impeding hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia, and rate-of-change alerts. A recent review identified 129 articles about CGM performance studies, of which approximately 25% contained alert evaluations. In some studies, real alerts were assessed; however, most of these studies retrospectively determined the timing of CGM alerts because not all CGM systems record alerts which necessitates manual documentation. In contrast to assessment of real alerts, retrospective determination allows assessment of a variety of alert settings for all three types of glycemic condition alerts. Based on the literature and the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute's POCT05 guideline, two common approaches to threshold alert evaluation were identified, one value-based and one episode-based approach. In this review, a critical discussion of the two approaches, including a post hoc analysis of clinical study data, indicates that the episode-based approach should be preferred over the value-based approach. For predictive alerts, fewer results were found in the literature, and retrospective determination of CGM alert timing is complicated by the prediction algorithms being proprietary information. Rate-of-change alert evaluations were not reported in the identified literature, and POCT05 does not contain recommendations for assessment. A possible approach is discussed including post hoc analysis of clinical study data. To conclude, CGM systems should record alerts, and the episode-based approach to alert evaluation should be preferred.

Indexed as

Blood GlucoseBlood Glucose Self-MonitoringContinuous Glucose MonitoringDiabetes MellitusHumansHyperglycemiaHypoglycemiaBlood Glucosealert evaluationalert thresholdcontinuous glucose monitoringpredictive alertrate of change

Identifiers

PMID38477308
PMCPMC11307228

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.