ArticleInternational journal of public health2026
GlucoNeo Check in the community: feasibility of photoplethysmography-based non-invasive glucose screening.
Article in International journal of public health, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aims to determine accuracy of GlucoNeo Check, PPG-Based Non-Invasive Glucose Screening Device in interpreting patients' blood glucose levels and to understand participants' perspectives on their experiences. Method: This study uses a mixed-methods with a cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy design to obtain a comprehensive overview through Clarke Error Grid Analysis using 660 participants with 3300 data sets, while incorporating qualitative components to assess feasibility and acceptance, using interviews and FGDs from 31 respondents, and analyzed thematically to understand user experience perspectives when using the device. Results: GlucoNeo Check performance had a Mean Absolute Percentage Error of 3.6% ± 0.621 and classification accuracy of 89.2% ± 0.0515. Most data fell within Zone A, with a small amount in Zone B and no data in Zones C and D. Thematic analysis identified 4 themes: 1) device quality and practicality, 2) comfort of use, 3) facilitating technology, and 4) inclusive interface design. Conclusion: GlucoNeo Check is accurate, innovative, and well-received tool for supporting community-based diabetes prevention but requires further validation to be adopted as a standard clinical monitoring tool.
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.