ArticleJournal of diabetes investigation2024
Glycemic metrics in Japanese isCGM users - Analysis by diabetes type and therapy.
Article in Journal of diabetes investigation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
AIMS/
introductionThe FreeStyle Libre (FSL) intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) system continually measures interstitial glucose levels and provides the data to users in numerical and graphical formats that guide users in their daily diabetes self-management. Although numerous studies have demonstrated the glycemic benefits of FSL in pediatric and adult populations, few studies have characterized FSL use specifically by Japanese adults with type 1 or 2 diabetes. We utilized established CGM metrics to assess glycemic control in a large cohort of Japanese adults with type 1 and 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 3,463 anonymized FSL users provided categorization into one of four therapy groups of interest: type 1 diabetes (n = 1,768), type 2 diabetes-multiple daily injections (MDI) (n = 612), type 2 diabetes-basal (BOI) (n = 343), and type 2 diabetes-non-insulin (NIT) (n = 740). Established CGM metrics were used to assess glycemic control.
resultsAll study groups showed relatively good glycemic control. Type 1 diabetes users showed the highest glucose variability (SD, 61 mg/dL; and %CV, 40%), above the established target level (%CV ≤ 36%). type 2 diabetes-MDI and type 2 diabetes-BOI users had similar levels of glucose variability (both within target). Type 2 diabetes-NIT users had the highest mean % time in range (TIR) (84.3%) and largest percentage of users that met the target of %TIR > 70% (87.4%). In contrast, type 1 diabetes users had the lowest mean %TIR (62.6%) and the lowest percentage meeting the established %TIR target (30.5%).
conclusionsBy utilizing CGM devices in daily diabetes care, both healthcare professionals and patients can monitor glycemic excursions and gain insights into their historical glucose control patterns.
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.