ArticleScientific reports2025
Reduced rates of diabetic retinopathy complications with use of continuous glucose monitoring.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Digital phenotyping of CGM engagement reveals distinct glycemic outcomes.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Assessment of glycemic control among patients undergoing surgical treatment for advanced diabetic retinopathy in Saudi Arabia.International journal of retina and vitreous · 2026Article
- Continuous glucose monitoring and microvascular complications in diabetes: Bridging glycemic metrics with clinical outcomes.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2026Review
- Screening and evaluation of therapeutic candidates with vascular protective effects in zebrafish models of diabetic retinopathy.Scientific reports · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Elucidating the outcomes of patients using continuous glucose monitoring (continuous glucose monitoring) in day-to-day clinical practice could help expand optimal practice guidelines in prevention and mitigation of diabetic retinopathy (DR). Retrospective cohort study. Subjects, Participants, and/or Controls: 13,302 patients with NPDR initiated on continuous glucose monitoring, compared with 179,079 patients with NPDR not initiated on continuous glucose monitoring before propensity score matching (propensity score matching) at one year. TriNetX (Cambridge, MA, USA), was used to identify patients diagnosed with NPDR stratified by initiation of continuous glucose monitoring or not with at least six months of follow-up. propensity score matching controlled for baseline demographics and medical comorbidities. After propensity score matching, 12,730 patients were subsequently analyzed in each cohort. Use of continuous glucose monitoring was associated with lower risk of vision threatening complications (DME: hazards ratio [HR], 0.87, 95% CI, 0.82-0.93; P < .001; PDR: HR, 0.74, 95% CI, 0.66-0.82; P < .001; VH: HR, 0.55, 95% CI, 0.47-0.66; P < .001; TRD: HR, 0.42, 95% CI, 0.27-0.68; P = .027), and need for ocular intervention (anti-VEGF injection: HR, 0.72, 95% CI, 0.65-0.80; P < .001; PRP: HR, 0.53, 95% CI, 0.44-0.64; P < .001; PPV: HR, 0.37, 95% CI, 0.26-0.51; P < .001) among patients with NPDR when compared with matched patients not using continuous glucose monitoring at 1 year. Similar associations at two years were found. continuous glucose monitoring use in patients with NPDR without prior ocular therapy was associated with lower risk of progression to vision threatening complications as well as need for ocular intervention at one year and two years, highlighting that glycemic variability and time in range are important factors influencing the risk of complications from diabetic eye disease.
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.