Observational studyDiabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association2025
Continuous glucose monitoring during intravenous insulin infusion treatment: Assessing accuracy to enable future clinical utility.
Observational study in Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association, 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.
- Continuous glucose monitoring during intravenous insulin infusion treatment: Assessing accuracy to enable future clinical utility.Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2025Observational
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
aimsContinuous glucose monitoring (CGM) during intravenous insulin infusions (IVII) could reduce blood glucose (BG) testing burden in hospital, however CGM accuracy concerns exist. We aimed to assess CGM accuracy during IVII.
methodsThis multi-centre observational study included adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) who required IVII treatment during hospital admission whilst wearing their own CGM devices (Abbott FreeStyle Libre 2, Medtronic Guardian 3, Dexcom G6). IVII dose adjustments were performed based upon standard of care BG measures. Accuracy was assessed according to mean absolute relative difference (MARD) and Consensus error grid (CEG) analysis, using time-matched (±5 minutes) pairs of CGM glucose and reference BG (point-of-care [POC], blood gas [GAS]) obtained during IVII.
resultsIn total, 736 time-matched glucose pairs were obtained from 56 hospital admissions (52% with diabetic ketoacidosis; 32% requiring intensive care). Median IVII duration was 16 hours (IQR 7.2-28). Overall MARD was 12.5% (11.9% for CGM-POC pairs; 14.1% for CGM-GAS pairs). In CEG analysis, 99.0% of glucose pairs were within zones A/B. Based on local hospital IVII dose titration protocols for non-intensive care wards, if CGM measures had been used instead of POC, dose adjustments would have been the same in 77% of instances.
conclusionsThis real-world study of adults with T1D demonstrated high concordance of CGM measures with BG during IVII. The accuracy of CGM during IVII might enable its greater clinical utility when treating inpatients receiving IVII. More inpatient studies are required to validate the use of CGM during IVII.
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.