ArticleAnnals of pediatric endocrinology & metabolism2026
Clinical accuracy of Dexcom G6 and G7 continuous glucose monitors in hospitalized pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes: a real-world study.
Article in Annals of pediatric endocrinology & metabolism, 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.
- CGM Accuracy in a Fragmented Regulatory Landscape: A Commentary on Harmonisation and Recent Evidence.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeContinuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is increasingly being used in inpatient pediatric diabetes care; however, data on its real-world accuracy remain limited.
methodsWe retrospectively assessed the clinical accuracy of factory-calibrated Dexcom G6 and G7 CGM systems in 69 pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes at a Korean tertiary hospital between 2019 and 2025. A total of 1,838 CGM readings were temporally paired with point-of-care (POC) capillary glucose measurements. Accuracy was evaluated using the mean absolute relative difference (MARD), mean absolute difference (MAD), Bland-Altman analysis, and Clarke error grid classification. Subgroup analyses were performed according to wear day, glucose range, care setting, and CGM type.
resultsThe overall MARD was 10.6%±10.1% and MAD was 15.4±16.2 mg/dL. Accuracy improved over time, with MARD declining from 13.8% (G6) and 11.0% (G7) on day 1 to <10% on days 6 and 4, respectively. Bland-Altman limits narrowed from ±60 to ±39 mg/dL. During Days 6-11, 85.9% of CGM-POC pairs were within Clarke zone A and 94.1% within zones A and B. The MAD increased with higher glucose levels, whereas the MARD was highest during hypoglycemia (15.2%) and lowest during hyperglycemia (8.5 %). Intensive care unit admission significantly increased the MAD (p<0.001) without affecting the MARD. G7 demonstrated superior accuracy compared with G6 (pooled MARD: 9.8% vs. 11.2%, p=0.003). Mixed-effects modeling confirmed that wear day was an independent predictor of accuracy improvement (-0.34% MARD/day, p=0.001).
conclusionThe Dexcom G6 and G7 CGM systems met the ISO (International Organization for Standardization) 15197:2013 and U.S. Food and Drug Administration integrated-CGM criteria after a short inpatient stabilization period.
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.