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

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 retro...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of diabetes investigation 2022-10, Vol.13 (10), p.1745-1752
Main Authors: Urakami, Tatsuhiko, Terada, Hiroki, Yoshida, Kei, Kuwabara, Remi, Mine, Yusuke, Aoki, Masako, Shoji, Yasuko, Suzuki, Junichi, Morioka, Ichiro
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adolescents
Body mass index
Children
Cohort analysis
Continuous glucose monitoring
Diabetes
Diabetes mellitus (insulin dependent)
Drug dosages
Glucose monitoring
Hemoglobin
Hypoglycemia
Insulin
Original
Patients
Pediatrics
Sensors
Smartphones
Teenagers
Type 1 diabetes
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary: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 (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 
ISSN:2040-1116
2040-1124
DOI:10.1111/jdi.13830