ArticleDiabetes, obesity & metabolism2026
Performance of continuous glucose monitoring systems (CGMs) during commercial flights in T1DM: A within-subject comparative pilot study.
Article in Diabetes, obesity & metabolism, 2026. 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.
- Technology in Diabetes: A Year in Review.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2026Review
- Performance of continuous glucose monitoring systems (CGMs) during commercial flights in T1DM: A within-subject comparative pilot study.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2026Article
- Development and validation of an AI-driven blood glucose prediction system for pilots based on continuous glucose monitoring.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsContinuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems are increasingly used, but their accuracy under flight-conditions remains insufficiently studied. We assessed sensor accuracy of four CGMs during in-flight (mid-haul) and ground conditions. MATERIALS AND
methodsParticipants (n = 20) wore four sensors (Abbott Libre 3, Dexcom G7, Medtronic Simplera, and Sinocare iCan i3) in parallel, inserted 1 day prior to experiment. Capillary reference measurements were performed every 30 min. Accuracy evaluation included: proportion of CGM values within 10% of comparator glucose levels >100 mg/dL or within 10 mg/days of comparator levels ≤100 mg/dL (%10/10), along with %20/20 agreement rates, mean absolute relative difference (MARD), Consensus error grid.
resultsTwenty participants with type 1 diabetes (age: 37.9 ± 12.8 years, HbA1c: 52.3 ± 4.9 mmol/mol, diabetes duration 19.25 ± 10.6 years) were included in the analysis. Data from 297 sensors with 3473 matched pairs (G7/Libre3/Simplera/i3) were analysed. The overall MARDs were: 9.5% ± 3.3% (G7), 9.6% ± 3.8% (Libre3), 19.9% ± 6.2% (Simplera) and 15.7% ± 6.6% (i3). Overall %20/20 and %10/10 agreement rates were 90.6%/70.2% (G7), 90.8%/66.8% (Libre3), 63.6%/37.8% (Simplera) and 72.5%/42.2% (i3) respectively. The proportion of values in Zones A and B of the Consensus error grid was 98.9% (G7), 99.0% (Libre 3), 94.5% (Simplera) and 97.5% (i3). Prandial state and flight phase had limited influence on the relative performance ranking of the devices.
conclusionsG7 and Libre3 showed consistently higher accuracy and clinical reliability across various phases of flight and ground conditions. Simplera and i3 exhibited greater variability in accuracy. These findings suggest that while modern CGMs could support diabetes management in aviation, individual system performance may differ under specific operational conditions.
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.