ArticleDiabetology & metabolic syndrome2025
Population characteristics, prescription patterns and glycemic control of users of flash glucose monitoring systems in Brazil: a real-world evidence study.
Article in Diabetology & metabolic syndrome, 2025. 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.
- Usabilidade de autoteste de antígeno para COVID-19: fatores associados e desafios relatados.Revista brasileira de enfermagem · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo date, there is a lack of information on the use of flash glucose monitoring system (fCGM) in low-middle income countries, such as Brazil, as well as on digital health platforms most used to calculate the bolus insulin dose. In this study, we aimed to describe the population characteristics, prescription patterns and glycemic control of fCGM users compared to blood glucose monitoring (BGM) system in those who use Glic™, a digital health platform in Brazil, and to assess factors associated with better glycemic control in this population.
methodsThis study is a cross-sectional retrospective study using anonymized aggregated data manually inputted by Glic™ users who self-reported a diagnosis of type 1 diabetes (T1DM), type 2 diabetes (T2DM), gestational diabetes (GDM) and latent autoimmune diabetes in adults (LADA).
resultsOf the 12,727 individuals included in this study, 11,007 (86.5%) reported their glucose monitoring method to be BGM, while 1720 (13.5%) reported using fCGM. Most individuals (70.5%) had T1DM. Compared to BGM, fCGM users were significantly younger, had a higher proportion of males, resided more frequently in the Southeast region of Brazil, had a lower BMI, a longer time since diagnosis, and used Glic™ platform more frequently. fCGM users were prescribed significantly more ultra-long and ultra-rapid acting insulins as their basal and bolus insulin, respectively, and less oral anti-diabetics drugs compared to BGM users. Considering only the T1DM and LADA individuals and their manual glucose inputs, fCGM users had non-significant lower glucose levels than BGM. Use of Glic™ platform and a higher percentage of basal insulin dose were associated with a better glycemic control.
conclusionThis is the first and largest real-world evidence study that describe and compare fCGM and BGM in users of a digital health patient support platform in Brazil. fCGM users were significantly different from those who perform BGM, in terms of population characteristics and treatment patterns. Glycemic control was better in fCGM users, although not statistically significant due to a restricted sample size. Importantly, a higher frequency of Glic™ use was associated with a higher glucose time in range.
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.