Medizinische Universität Graz Austria/Österreich - Forschungsportal - Medical University of Graz
Gewählte Publikation:
SHR Neuro Krebs Kardio Lipid Stoffw Microb
Spartano, NL; Prescott, B; Walker, ME; Shi, E; Venkatesan, G; Fei, D; Lin, H; Murabito, JM; Ahn, D; Battelino, T; Edelman, SV; Fleming, GA; Freckmann, G; Galindo, RJ; Joubert, M; Lansang, MC; Mader, JK; Mankovsky, B; Mathioudakis, NN; Mohan, V; Peters, AL; Shah, VN; Spanakis, EK; Waki, K; Wright, EE; Zilbermint, M; Wolpert, HA; Steenkamp, DW.
Expert Clinical Interpretation of Continuous Glucose Monitor Reports From Individuals Without Diabetes.
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2025; 19322968251315171
Doi: 10.1177/19322968251315171
[OPEN ACCESS]
Web of Science
PubMed
FullText
FullText_MUG
- Co-Autor*innen der Med Uni Graz
- Mader Julia
- Altmetrics:
- Dimensions Citations:
- Plum Analytics:
- Scite (citation analytics):
- Abstract:
- BACKGROUND: Clinical interpretation of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data for people without diabetes has not been well established. This study aimed to investigate concordance among CGM experts in recommending clinical follow-up for individuals without diabetes, based upon their independent review of CGM data. METHODS: We sent a survey out to expert clinicians (n = 18) and asked them to evaluate 20 potentially challenging Dexcom G6 Pro CGM reports (and hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c] and fasting venous blood glucose levels) from individuals without diabetes. Clinicians reported whether they would recommend follow-up and the reasoning for their decision. We performed Fleiss Kappa interrater reliability to determine agreement among clinicians. RESULTS: More than half of expert clinicians (56-100%, but no clear consensus) recommended follow-up to individuals who spent >2% time above range (>180 mg/dL), even if HbA1c <5.7% and fasting glucose <100 mg/dL. There were no observed trends for recommending follow-up based on mean glucose or glucose management indicator. Overall, we observed poor agreement in recommendations for who should receive follow-up based on their CGM report (Fleiss Kappa = 0.36). CONCLUSIONS: High discordance among expert clinicians when interpreting potentially challenging CGM reports for people without diabetes highlights the need for more research in developing normative data for people without diabetes. Future work is required to develop CGM criteria for identifying potentially high-risk individuals who may progress to prediabetes or type 2 diabetes.
- Find related publications in this database (Keywords)
- continuous glucose monitoring
- prediabetes
- diabetes technology
- screening tool
- expert recommendation