ArticleBMJ open diabetes research & care2025
Quantification of the relation between continuous glucose monitoring observation period and the estimation error in assessing long-term glucose regulation.
Article in BMJ open diabetes research & care, 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.
- Augmenting ultrasound for continuous glucose monitoring via a wearable acoustically readable microneedle patch.Science advances · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe integration of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) into clinical practice has rapidly emerged in the last decade, changing the evaluation of long-term glucose regulation in patients with diabetes. When using CGM-derived metrics to evaluate long-term glucose regulation, it is essential to determine the minimal observation period necessary for a reliable estimate. The approach of this study was to calculate mean absolute errors (MAEs) for varying window lengths, with the goal of demonstrating how the CGM observation period influences the accuracy of the estimation of 90-day glycemic control. RESEARCH DESIGN AND
methodsCGM data were collected from the DIABASE cohort (ZGT hospital, The Netherlands). Trailing aggregates (TAs) were calculated for four CGM-derived metrics: time in range (TIR), time below range (TBR), glucose management indicator (GMI) and glycemic variability (GV). Arbitrary MAEs for each patient were compared between the TAs of window lengths from 1 to 89 days and a reference TA of 90 days, which is assumed to reflect long-term glycemic regulation.
resultsUsing 14 days of CGM data resulted in 65% of subjects having their TIR estimation being below a MAE threshold of 5%. In order to have 90% of the subjects below a TIR MAE threshold of 5%, the observation period needs to be 29 days.
conclusionsAlthough there is currently no consensus on what is an acceptable MAE, this study provides insight into how MAEs of CGM-derived metrics change according to the used observation period within a population and may thus be helpful for clinical decision-making.
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.