ArticleBMJ open2025
Demographic variation in continuous glucose monitoring utilisation among patients with type 1 diabetes from a US regional academic medical centre: a retrospective cohort study, 2018-2021.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Use of Continuous Glucose Monitors in Exercise Research Studies-A Scoping Review on Study Characteristics and Common Practices.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Challenges and Opportunities for Improving Care for Type 1 Diabetes in Older Adulthood.Diabetes care · 2026Review
- Clin-STAR Corner: Practice Changing Advances in Diabetes Care.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2025Review
- Psychological Care Needs and Mental Health Service Use Among Adults with Diabetes: Evidence from the Diabetes, Distress, and Disparities (3D) Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveWhile continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) utilisation has been increasing among patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D), few studies have examined patterns of use across age, race/ethnicity and insurance status together. In this study, we examine CGM utilisation among patients with T1D from a regional academic medical centre across all insurance types. DESIGN AND
settingThis is a retrospective cohort study including both paediatric and adult patients with T1D who visited a regional academic medical centre between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2021.
methodsPatients were followed from the date of their first T1D encounter during the study period until the first of the following: CGM use was documented, ≥730 days with no encounters at this centre or the end of the study period. We compared CGM use across demographic and clinical characteristics and used logistic regression models to assess the association between demographic variables and CGM utilisation.
resultsAmong 3311 eligible patients with T1D, CGM utilisation was 51.22%. The highest utilisation rates were among patients <18 years old while the lowest rates were among those in the 65+ years age group. Patients with private insurance and those who attended diabetes self-management education and support (DSMES) programmes had significantly higher CGM utilisation than those with public insurance and those who did not attend DSMES, respectively. In models stratified by age, we examined patterns of CGM use across insurance categories and found that CGM rates were persistently low among those with public versus private insurance.
conclusionsIn this retrospective review of patients with T1D receiving care at a regional academic medical centre from 2018 to 2021, nearly half of our sample used CGM. However, we found substantial variation in CGM utilisation with lower rates among older versus younger adults and individuals covered by public versus private insurance. Enhancing CGM access is important to mitigate diabetes-related complications for all patients with T1D.
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.