You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 107, Issue 4
  • Continuous glucose monitoring improves patient satisfaction and frequency of glucose monitoring but does not lead to better glycaemic control in youth with type 1 diabetes

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Key publications in paediatrics: Picket
Continuous glucose monitoring improves patient satisfaction and frequency of glucose monitoring but does not lead to better glycaemic control in youth with type 1 diabetes
  1. Miriam Farrant1,
  2. Amanda Jane Friend1,2
  1. 1 University of Leeds School of Medicine, Leeds, UK
  2. 2 Paediatrics, Leeds General Infirmary, Leeds, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Amanda Jane Friend, Paediatrics, Leeds General Infirmary, Leeds, UK; amanda.friend{at}nhs.net

https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2020-320967

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Review of: Boucher SE et al. Effect of 6 months of flash glucose monitoring in youth with type 1 diabetes and high-risk control: a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care, 2020; dc200613.

    Study design

    Design: Multicentre randomised controlled trial.

    Study question

    Setting: New Zealand.

    Patients: 64 patients aged 13–20 years with established type 1 diabetes and glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) ≥9% (≥75 mmol/mol) recruited from three academic diabetes centres.

    Exposure: 6 months of intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) vs 6 months of standard capillary self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG).

    Outcome: HbA1c at the end of the 6-month period.

    Secondary outcomes: glucose-monitoring frequency and diabetes subscale mean item …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Twitter @the_learnaholic

    • Contributors MF wrote the abstract, AJF wrote the commentary.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.