ArticleJournal of clinical & translational endocrinology2025
Alternative approaches to glucose measurements during oral glucose tolerance testing in youth with cystic fibrosis: a mixed methods pilot study.
Article in Journal of clinical & translational endocrinology, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Adherence to annual OGTT screening for cystic fibrosis-related diabetes (CFRD) is poor. In this mixed methods study we assessed the accuracy, feasibility, and acceptability of alternative approaches to glucose measurements during an OGTT. Methods: Standard OGTT with plasma glucose sampling at 0, 60, and 120-min was conducted in 14 youth ≥ 10 years of age with CF. A self-administered OGTT kit (Digostics, GTT@home) measuring capillary glucose and Dexcom G7 continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) were performed concomitantly with OGTT. CGM glucose values were recorded at 5-minute intervals for 20-minutes after each time point to account for lag. Plasma OGTT glucose and glucose tolerance categories [normal (NGT), impaired (IGT), indeterminate (INDET), and CFRD] were compared with these same outcomes as defined by the self-administered kit and CGM. Younden's index was used to determine the optimal CGM timepoint for categorization of glucose tolerance, and ROC curves were used to identify the optimal glucose thresholds. Participants and their parents were interviewed to understand their experience with alternative testing approaches. Results: Based on plasma glucose, participants were characterized as NGT (n = 8), IGT (n = 5), and CFRD (n = 1). Whereas the GTT@home correctly categorized glucose tolerance in 6 participants (43 %), CGM correctly categorized 13 (93 %). The CGM glucose at 125 min was identified as the timepoint at which the measured glucose yielded maximum discrimination for all categories of glucose tolerance (AUC for NGT = 0.979, IGT = 0.867, CFRD = 1.0). A CGM glucose threshold of 154 mg/dL demonstrated 100 % sensitivity and 87.5 % specificity for identifying NGT; for IGT a threshold of 182 mg/dL exhibited 80 % sensitivity and 88.9 % specificity. Parent-child dyads valued convenience during OGTT screening, but expressed concerns about glucose measurement accuracy and performing medical procedures in the home. Conclusions: CGM glucose values during OGTT may offer an accurate assessment of glucose tolerance categories, though this approach may require further refinement for patient acceptability.
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.