ReviewDiabetology & metabolic syndrome2025
How to take action beyond ambulatory glucose profile: Latin American expert recommendations on CGM data interpretation.
Review 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.
- Bridging the Continuous Glucose Monitoring decision gap: from glycaemic variability data to actionable stability in diabetes care.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis expert consensus provides a standardized methodology for interpreting continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data to optimize diabetes management. It aims to help healthcare professionals recognize glycemic patterns and apply targeted interventions based on real-time glucose metrics.
methodsA systematic literature review informed expert panel discussions. Specialists from Latin America assessed CGM interpretation challenges, reviewed key metrics, and reached consensus through an anonymous voting process. The recommendations align with international guidelines while addressing regional limitations in technology access and healthcare infrastructure.
resultsReliable CGM data interpretation requires at least 70% sensor use over 14 days. The Ambulatory Glucose Profile (AGP) report serves as the primary tool, offering essential metrics such as time in range (TIR), time below range (TBR), time above range (TAR), coefficient of variation (CV), and glucose management indicator (GMI). Identifying hyperglycemia, hypoglycemia, and glucose variability allows for personalized treatment adjustments. The panel adopted international glycemic targets, adapting them to Latin American settings. The time in tight range (TITR) was considered but not included due to limited supporting evidence and regional barriers to advanced CGM technology.
conclusionsStandardized CGM interpretation improves glycemic control and treatment decisions. These recommendations provide a structured approach to diabetes care, aiming to enhance clinical outcomes and address healthcare disparities in Latin America.
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.