ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2026
Evaluating the agreement of continuous glucose monitoring system with venous methods for glycemic index determination.
Article in Frontiers in nutrition, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Continuous glucose monitoring systems (CGMS) are widely used in diabetes care, but their reliability for standardized food glycemic index (GI) measurement remains unclear. Most previous studies used capillary blood rather than venous glucose as the reference. Objective: This study aimed to verify the consistency between the CGMS and standardized venous sampling methods for measuring postprandial incremental area under the curve (IAUC) and GI values. Methods: This study was conducted in accordance with the Chinese GI testing standard WS/T 652-2019. Three measurement methods were compared: venous sampling (Method A), CGMS with all data points adopted (Method B), and CGMS data aligned with the standard venous time points (Method C). One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) were used for statistical analysis. The Parkes Error Grid analysis was employed to ascertain the clinical acceptability of glucose discrepancies within low, medium, and high concentration strata. Results: The 12 enrolled participants (six males and six females) had a mean age of 29.50 ± 10.12 years, mean BMI of 21.5 ± 1.7 kg/m Conclusion: CGMS methods demonstrate good-to-moderate concordance with standardized venous testing for IAUC and GI determination. CGMS may represent a feasible, non-invasive alternative for food GI evaluation in nutritional and diabetes-related research among healthy individuals.
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.