Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41109845›Full record

ReviewJournal of diabetes science and technology2026

The Impact of Interfering Substances on Continuous Glucose Monitors Part 3: A Review of Non-Labeled Substances Influencing Continuous Glucose Monitor Readings.

Steven John Setford

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Steven John SetfordLifeScan Scotland Ltd., Inverness, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1983-0461

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Presented is a series of narrative reviews that summarize published information regarding the effect or potential effect of interfering substances on the accuracy of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices. While drawing together what is currently known regarding this topic, the future direction in this field and clinical implications posed by polypharmacy on CGM performance are considered. This third in a series of articles lists substances that have been found to influence readings from specific continuous glucose monitor (CGM) models. Points covered include: (1) A review of non-labeled substances that have been found, through in vivo or in vitro assessment, to influence CGM readings; (2) A consideration of substances found to influence CGM readings to an extent that warrants further investigations to determine if a clinically significant in vivo interfering effect occurs at therapeutically or nutritionally relevant levels of a substance and, as such, would require labeling by the manufacturer; and (3) the possibility of predicting if a new medication or formulation is predisposed to influencing CGM readings, based on an assessment of chemical structure or chemical classification. Evidence suggests that a more systematic approach to interference testing would be of value in determining if additional labeling is required for currently marketed CGMs. It is possible that many of the substances reported have previously been assessed by manufacturers and are within acceptance criteria such that product labeling is not required according to currently recognized definitions of interference. Nevertheless, it would be beneficial for this information to be publicly disclosed.

Indexed as

Blood GlucoseBlood Glucose Self-MonitoringContinuous Glucose MonitoringHumansBlood Glucosecatecholaminescontinuous glucose monitorinterfering substanceslabelingoxygen

Identifiers

PMID41109845
PMCPMC12536010

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.