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.
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.
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.
- Evolution of Biosensors and Current State-of-the-Art Applications in Diabetes Control.Biosensors · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.