ArticleDiabetes, obesity & metabolism2025
Discrepancies between current displayed and auto-logged glucose values in FreeStyle Libre 3: Implications for clinical interpretation.
Article in Diabetes, obesity & metabolism, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Decision accuracy of simultaneously used real-time CGM versus intermittently scanned CGM around exercise in type 1 diabetes: A secondary analysis of the ULTRAFLEXI-1 study.Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2026Article
- Performance of three simultaneously used rtCGM systems around a physically active weekend camp in adults with type 1 diabetes: A prospective lab and real-world study.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2026Article
- Discrepancies between current displayed and auto-logged glucose values in FreeStyle Libre 3: Implications for clinical interpretation.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsThe FreeStyle Libre 3 (FSL3) continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system provides both auto-logged glucose values (AL) and current displayed glucose values (CUR). These values are often assumed to be interchangeable; however, discrepancies and their clinical relevance remain underexplored. MATERIALS AND
methodsData from a 15-day study in 24 study participants wearing FSL3 were analysed, including three in-clinic sessions with glycaemic excursions during which CUR values were retrieved every 15 min by study personnel. Paired AL and CUR readings were compared using descriptive statistics, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, and mean absolute relative difference (MARD) calculations. Display errors defined as instances where the app showed an error message instead of a CUR value were analysed using linear mixed-effects models to assess associations with glucose level and rate of change (RoC).
resultsCUR values were comparable to AL in general (mean difference: -1.2 ± 6.4 mg/dL), but slightly lower in the hypoglycaemic range. Discrepancies exceeding ±10 mg/dL occurred in about 10% of cases. MARD was comparable between AL (9.7%) and CUR (10.1%), with greater deviation in hypoglycaemia. Display errors (3.9%) occurred more often at higher glucose levels (mean AL difference: +91.9 mg/dL) and during rapid fluctuations (mean absolute RoC difference: +1.52 mg/dL/min; both p < 0.001).
conclusionsAlthough differences between AL and CUR were generally small, they were systematic and more pronounced in critical contexts like hypoglycaemia and rapid glucose change. Recognising these patterns may improve CGM data interpretation and alignment between user actions, provider decisions, and automated systems. These differences can reclassify readings across clinical thresholds, affecting patient-clinician alignment despite small average biases.
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.