ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2026
The Impact of an Experience-Based Versus Traditional Continuous Glucose Monitoring Curriculum on Internal Medicine Resident Confidence and Knowledge.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 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
backgroundContinuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is an important tool in diabetes care, yet providers often have limited familiarity with its use. Personal CGM use may enhance provider knowledge and confidence.
objectiveWe evaluated whether an experience-based CGM curriculum (EC) improves confidence and knowledge among internal medicine (IM) residents compared with a traditional curriculum (TC).
designIRB-exempt, prospective, randomized educational intervention.
participantsThirty-six IM residents.
interventionsResidents were assigned to either EC (didactic, clinic, 10 days of personal CGM wear) or TC (didactic and clinic only). MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcome: change in CGM confidence scores as measured by pre- and post-curriculum surveys. SECONDARY OUTCOME: percentage of post-curriculum knowledge questions answered correctly on the knowledge assessment. Paired pre- vs post-survey responses were compared using McNemar testing; EC vs TC were compared using Fisher's exact test. A qualitative outcome analyzed free-text responses regarding participant experience using CGM.
resultsThirty-six residents completed the pre-curriculum survey and 27 the post-curriculum survey (n = 13 EC, n = 14 TC), with 23 paired responses. Overall confidence improved across multiple CGM domains. Confidence in helping a patient apply a CGM sensor increased significantly overall (p = 0.0001), with greater improvement in EC (p = 0.0003). Smartphone integration showed a similar pattern (EC vs TC p = 0.012) as did confidence addressing patient questions (EC vs TC p = 0.012). Confidence explaining CGM function (p = 0.004) and interpreting reports (p = 0.004) increased overall but without between-group differences. Knowledge scores were similar (EC 67 ± 12% vs TC 62 ± 16%). Qualitative themes included insight into the patient experience, improved procedural confidence, greater lifestyle counseling ability, and endorsement of experiential learning.
conclusionsProviding an opportunity to personally use CGMs among IM residents produced greater gains in applied and patient-facing skills than a traditional curriculum. These findings support incorporating hands-on CGM experience into residency training to better prepare trainees for modern diabetes care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42601539What 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.