ArticleDiabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association2026
Prevalence, duration, and clinical implications of continuous glucose monitor measurement limit capping in type 1 diabetes.
Article in Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsCGM devices report glucose only within fixed limits (typically 40-400 mg/dL; 2.2-22.2 mmol/L), truncating extreme values to a boundary ('capping'). We characterised prevalence, duration, and consequences of capping in type 1 diabetes trial data.
methodsWe analysed 46,990,617 CGM readings from 948 participants across four publicly available clinical trial datasets (Dexcom G4 Platinum or G6 sensors). Capping prevalence, run duration, and associations with age, HbA1c, and sex were characterised across all datasets. In the 77 participants of the Replace-BG trial, CGM-plus-blood glucose monitor (BGM) arm, CGM-derived metrics were compared with contemporaneous BGM measurements across 1162 non-overlapping 14-day windows.
resultsBetween 93.5% and 100% of participants had at least one capped reading, and capped values comprised 0.47-0.98% of all readings. In the three datasets for which duration could be calculated, over 70% of upper-cap runs exceeded 15 min and over one third exceeded 60 min. Upper-limit capping was inversely associated with age (Spearman ρ -0.20 to -0.47, p ≤ 0.002) in three of the datasets, and positively associated with baseline HbA1c (ρ 0.39-0.62, p < 0.001) in all four datasets. A within-participant analysis showed that capping burden did not predict CGM-BGM divergence in any summary metric (all p > 0.2), and a systematic CGM-BGM offset in mean glucose and time in range (TIR) reflected the physiological lag between blood and interstitial fluid rather than capping artefact.
conclusionsSensor limit capping is near-universal in type 1 diabetes, produces sustained periods of right-censored glucose data disproportionately affecting younger participants, and does not substantially distort standard summary metrics at the population level. Clinicians and trialists should be aware that CGM data can confirm extreme glucose events but cannot quantify their severity.
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.