Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Oct;13(10):1745-1752.
doi: 10.1111/jdi.13830. Epub 2022 May 28.

Comparison of the clinical effects of intermittently scanned and real-time continuous glucose monitoring in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes: A retrospective cohort study

Tatsuhiko Urakami  1 , Hiroki Terada  1 , Kei Yoshida  1 , Remi Kuwabara  1 , Yusuke Mine  1 , Masako Aoki  1 , Yasuko Shoji  1 , Junichi Suzuki  1 , Ichiro Morioka  1
Affiliations

Comparison of the clinical effects of intermittently scanned and real-time continuous glucose monitoring in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes: A retrospective cohort study

Tatsuhiko Urakami et al. J Diabetes Investig. 2022 Oct.

Abstract

Aims/introduction: The aim of the study was to compare two continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems, intermittently scanned CGM (isCGM) and real-time CGM (rtCGM), to determine which system achieved better glycemic control in pediatric patients.

Materials and methods: We carried out a retrospective cohort study of children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes, and compared the time in range (70-180 mg/dL), time below range (<70 mg/dL) and time above range (>180 mg/dL), and estimated glycated hemoglobin levels between patients on isCGM and rtCGM.

Results: Of the 112 participants, 76 (67.9%) used isCGM and 36 (32.1%) used rtCGM for glycemic management. Patients on rtCGM had significantly greater time in range (57.7 ± 12.3% vs 52.3 ± 12.3%, P = 0.0368), and had significantly lower time below range (4.3 ± 2.7% vs 10.2% ± 5.4%, P < 0.001) than those on isCGM, but there was no significant difference in the time above range (37.4 ± 12.9% vs 38.0% ± 12.5%, P = 0.881) or the glycosylated hemoglobin A1c levels (7.4 ± 0.9% vs 7.5 ± 0.8%, P = 0.734) between the two groups.

Conclusions: Pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes on rtCGM also showed more beneficial effects for increase of time in range, with a notable reduction of time below range compared with those on isCGM. Real-time CGM might provide better glycemic control than isCGM in children with type 1 diabetes.

Keywords: Continuous glucose monitoring; Hypoglycemia; Type 1 diabetes.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Comparison of time in range (TIR) between the intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) group and the real‐time CGM (rtCGM) group. [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
Figure 2
Figure 2
Comparison of time below range (TBR) between the intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) group and the real‐time CGM (rtCGM) group. [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
Figure 3
Figure 3
Comparison of time above range (TAR) between the intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) group and the real‐time CGM (rtCGM) group. [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
Figure 4
Figure 4
Comparison of estimated glycosylated hemoglobin A1c (eA1c) between the intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) group and the real‐time CGM (rtCGM)group. [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Miller EM. Using continuous glucose monitoring in clinical use. Clin Diabetes 2020; 38: 429–438. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Battelino T, Danne T, Bergenstal RM, et al. Clinical targets for continuous glucose monitoring data interpretation: recommendations from the international consensus on time in range. Diabetes Care 2019; 42: 1593–1603. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bolinder J, Antuna R, Geelhoed‐Duijvestijn P, et al. Novel glucose‐sensing technology and hypoglycaemia in type 1 diabetes: a multicentre, non‐masked, randomized controlled trial. Lancet 2016; 388: 2254–2263. - PubMed
    1. van Beers CAJ, DeVries JH, Kleijer SJ, et al. Continuous glucose monitoring for patients with type 1 diabetes and impaired awareness of hypoglycemia (IN CONTROL): a randomised, open‐label, crossover trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2016; 4: 893–902. - PubMed
    1. Beck RW, Riddlesworth T, Ruedy K, et al. Effect of continuous glucose monitoring on glycemic control in adults with type 1 diabetes using insulin injections: the DIAMOND randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2017; 317: 371–378. - PubMed