Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42251507›Full record

ReviewJournal of diabetes science and technology2026

Data Privacy, Ownership, and Secondary Use of Clinical Data Generated by Continuous Glucose Monitors and Mobile Health Applications: A Review.

Paulo Dario

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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Paulo DarioInstituto Nacional de Saúde Doutor Ricardo Jorge (INSA), Departamento de Promoção da Saúde e Prevenção de Doenças Não Transmissíveis, Lisboa, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-4203-9179

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The growing use of continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) and mobile health (mHealth) applications has changed how diabetes is managed, allowing real-time tracking of glycemic patterns and remote clinical decision-making. These technologies also generate large volumes of sensitive health data, raising questions about who owns this information, how it is protected, and under what conditions it may be repurposed for research or commercial objectives. This review examines the regulatory frameworks governing CGM and mHealth data in major jurisdictions, with particular attention to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) in the United States and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the European Union. Significant regulatory gaps exist, particularly for consumer-grade devices and direct-to-consumer mHealth applications that fall outside traditional healthcare data-protection frameworks. Data ownership remains legally ambiguous in most jurisdictions, with patients, healthcare providers, device manufacturers, and app developers each holding competing claims. The secondary use of clinical data for research, while it could materially advance diabetes care, raises ethical concerns around informed consent, data de-identification, and the boundaries between clinical care and commercial exploitation. Emerging approaches, including the European Health Data Space, federated learning, and differential privacy, may help balance data utility with individual rights. The review recommends changes to regulation, industry practice, and consent models aimed at reconciling data-driven diabetes research with patient autonomy and privacy.

Indexed as

continuous glucose monitoringdata ownershipdata privacymHealthregulatory frameworkssecondary use

Identifiers

PMID42251507
PMCPMC13243303

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.