Clinical Interpretation of CGM

 Clinical Interpretation of Continuous Glucose Monitoring: A Comprehensive Review

Dr Neeraj Manikath, claude. Ai

 Abstract

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) technology has revolutionized diabetes management by providing comprehensive glycemic data beyond what traditional self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) can offer. This review examines the current evidence and best practices for clinical interpretation of CGM data, highlighting standardized metrics, pattern recognition, and clinical decision-making approaches. We discuss the evolution of CGM technologies, key performance metrics, standardized reporting formats, and clinical applications across different patient populations. Special attention is given to emerging metrics, integration with artificial intelligence, and future directions. Understanding how to effectively interpret CGM data is essential for optimizing diabetes management and improving patient outcomes in clinical practice.

Introduction

Diabetes management has undergone a paradigm shift with the advent of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems. Unlike traditional fingerstick glucose measurements that provide isolated data points, CGM offers a comprehensive view of glycemic excursions, trends, and patterns over time. This technological advancement has transformed our understanding of glycemic variability and its impact on diabetes management and outcomes.^1,2^

CGM systems measure interstitial glucose levels at frequent intervals (typically every 1-15 minutes) through a subcutaneously inserted sensor, providing near real-time data on glucose concentrations, direction, and rate of change.^3^ Modern CGM systems can transmit data wirelessly to receivers, smartphones, or insulin pumps, enabling remote monitoring and integration with automated insulin delivery systems.^4,5^

Despite the wealth of data provided by CGM, translating this information into actionable clinical decisions remains challenging for many healthcare providers and patients.^6^ This review aims to provide a comprehensive framework for interpreting CGM data in clinical practice, highlighting standardized metrics, pattern recognition approaches, and evidence-based interventions based on CGM findings.

 Evolution of CGM Technologies

Historical Development

The journey of CGM began in the late 1990s with the approval of the first professional CGM system by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).^7^ These early systems were retrospective, requiring healthcare provider download and interpretation after the monitoring period. The subsequent generations introduced real-time CGM (rtCGM) capabilities, allowing users to view glucose values and trends as they occurred, and intermittently scanned CGM (isCGM) or "flash" systems that provide glucose information when the sensor is scanned with a reader device.^8,9^

 Current Technologies

Modern CGM systems vary in their technical specifications, including:

1. Sensor duration: Ranging from 7 to 14 days, with some newer systems extending to 180 days.^10,11^

2. Calibration requirements: Factory-calibrated systems versus those requiring fingerstick calibrations.^12^

3. Data transmission: Continuous automatic transmission versus user-initiated scanning.^13^

4. Integration capabilities: Compatibility with insulin pumps, automated insulin delivery systems, and data management platforms.^14,15^

5. Accuracy metrics: Differences in mean absolute relative difference (MARD) values, typically ranging from 9-14%.^16,17^

Each of these technical aspects influences data interpretation and clinical utility in different patient populations and clinical scenarios.

Standardized CGM Metrics and Reporting

The International Consensus on Time in Range established standardized CGM metrics and a unified report format (Ambulatory Glucose Profile, or AGP) to facilitate consistent interpretation and communication of CGM data.^18,19^

Key Performance Metrics

1. Time in Range (TIR): Percentage of time spent within target glucose range, typically 70-180 mg/dL (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) for most adults with diabetes.^20^ Clinical targets recommend >70% TIR for most patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, with less stringent goals for high-risk or elderly populations.^21,22^

2. Time Below Range (TBR): Percentage of time spent below target range, subdivided into Level 1 (54-70 mg/dL or 3.0-3.9 mmol/L) and Level 2 (<54 mg/dL or <3.0 mmol/L) hypoglycemia.^23^ Targets suggest <4% for TBR <70 mg/dL and <1% for TBR <54 mg/dL.^24^

3. Time Above Range (TAR): Percentage of time spent above target range, categorized as Level 1 (180-250 mg/dL or 10.0-13.9 mmol/L) and Level 2 (>250 mg/dL or >13.9 mmol/L) hyperglycemia.^25^ Recommendations suggest <25% for TAR >180 mg/dL and <5% for TAR >250 mg/dL.^26^

4. Glycemic Variability (GV): Typically quantified as coefficient of variation (CV), with <36% considered stable and ≥36% indicating unstable glycemia.^27,28^

5. Estimated HbA1c (eA1c) or Glucose Management Indicator (GMI): Calculated from mean glucose values to estimate laboratory HbA1c.^29,30^

6. Average Glucose: Mean glucose concentration over the monitoring period.^31^

The Ambulatory Glucose Profile (AGP)

The standardized AGP report consolidates CGM data into a visual format that facilitates interpretation and pattern recognition.^32^ Key components include:

1. Statistical summary: Overall glucose metrics including TIR, TBR, TAR, mean glucose, GMI, and measures of variability.^33^

2. Daily glucose profiles: Individual daily traces overlaid to visualize day-to-day consistency.^34^

3. Modal day pattern: Aggregate data presented as median and interquartile ranges across a 24-hour period, highlighting typical patterns and variability at different times of day.^35,36^

4. Ambulatory glucose profile: A consolidated visual representation showing the median and percentiles of glucose values throughout the day.^37^

 Clinical Interpretation: A Systematic Approach

Effective interpretation of CGM data requires a systematic approach that moves beyond individual glucose values to identify patterns, trends, and actionable insights.

Step 1: Assess Data Sufficiency and Quality

Before drawing conclusions, clinicians should evaluate:

1. Data completeness: Minimum of 70% data capture over the monitoring period (at least 10 of 14 days) for reliable interpretation.^38,39^

2. Representative period: Consideration of whether the monitoring period reflects typical patterns or was influenced by unusual events, illness, or significant changes in routine.^40^

3. Sensor performance: Assessment of any gaps, compression artifacts, or other technical issues that might affect data integrity.^41^

Step 2: Review Overall Glycemic Metrics

Begin with the statistical summary to understand the broad picture:

1. Mean glucose and GMI: Compare with laboratory HbA1c to assess correlation and identify potential discrepancies that might indicate glycemic variability or hemoglobinopathies.^42,43^

2. Time in Range metrics: Evaluate against established targets based on patient characteristics and treatment goals.^44^

3. Glycemic variability: Assess CV and potential contributors to instability.^45^

 Step 3: Identify Temporal Patterns

Analyze the modal day and daily overlay plots to identify recurring patterns:

1. Hypoglycemic patterns: Timing, frequency, and severity of low glucose events, particularly nocturnal hypoglycemia.^46,47^

2. Hyperglycemic patterns: Post-prandial spikes, dawn phenomenon, extended periods of hyperglycemia.^48,49^

3. Day-to-day consistency: Variability in patterns across different days of the week, potentially indicating lifestyle influences.^50^

4. Time-specific patterns: Recurring patterns at particular times of day (e.g., evening hyperglycemia, mid-afternoon drops).^51^

 Step 4: Correlate with External Factors

Integrate CGM data with patient-reported information on:

1. Meal timing and content: Relationship between food intake and glucose excursions.^52,53^

2. Medication administration: Timing, dosage, and apparent effectiveness of insulin or other glucose-lowering medications.^54^

3. Physical activity: Influence of exercise on glucose levels and potential delayed hypoglycemic effects.^55,56^

4. Stress, illness, and other physiological factors: Impact on glucose patterns and insulin sensitivity.^57^

5. Sleep patterns: Relationship between sleep duration, quality, and glycemic control.^58,59^

Step 5: Formulate Intervention Strategies

Based on identified patterns, develop targeted interventions:

1. Medication adjustments: Modifications to basal or bolus insulin regimens, timing of oral medications, or consideration of alternative therapeutic agents.^60,61^

2. Behavioral recommendations: Changes to meal composition or timing, physical activity patterns, or stress management approaches.^62^

3. Education needs: Identification of knowledge gaps related to insulin action, carbohydrate counting, or hypoglycemia prevention and management.^63,64^

4. Technology optimization: Adjustments to insulin pump settings, CGM alerts, or implementation of decision support tools.^65^

Clinical Applications in Different Patient Populations

 Type 1 Diabetes

In type 1 diabetes, CGM interpretation focuses on:

1. Insulin optimization: Fine-tuning of basal rates, insulin-to-carbohydrate ratios, and correction factors based on identified patterns.^66,67^

2. Hypoglycemia reduction: Identification and mitigation of hypoglycemia risk factors, particularly during sleep and exercise.^68,69^

3. Integration with insulin delivery: Evaluation of automated insulin delivery system performance and optimization of algorithm parameters.^70^

4. Behavioral impacts: Correlation between lifestyle factors and glycemic outcomes to guide personalized recommendations.^71,72^

 Type 2 Diabetes

For individuals with type 2 diabetes, interpretation priorities include:

1. Therapeutic efficacy: Assessment of current medication regimen effectiveness through post-prandial patterns and overnight control.^73,74^

2. Nutritional insights: Identification of food choices or meal patterns that optimize or worsen glycemic control.^75,76^

3. Lifestyle correlations: Relationships between physical activity, stress, and glucose patterns.^77^

4. Treatment intensification decisions: Data-driven approach to initiating or adjusting insulin therapy or other medication changes.^78,79^

Pregnancy and Gestational Diabetes

CGM interpretation during pregnancy requires:

1. Stricter targets: Evaluation against tighter glycemic goals (TIR 63-140 mg/dL >70%, with <4% below 63 mg/dL and <25% above 140 mg/dL).^80,81^

2. Rapid intervention: Prompt identification and correction of patterns given the narrow window for optimization.^82^

3. Physiological changes: Consideration of changing insulin sensitivity throughout pregnancy and how this affects patterns.^83,84^

4. Fetal growth correlation: Integration with fetal monitoring data to guide management decisions.^85^

 Special Populations

 Pediatric Patients

Interpretation considerations include:

1. Developmental context: Age-appropriate targets and expectations for glycemic control.^86,87^

2. Growth and puberty: Effects of growth hormone and pubertal hormones on insulin resistance and glucose patterns.^88^

3. Educational approach: Age-appropriate strategies for pattern recognition and response.^89,90^

4. Family dynamics: Impact of shared management and supervision on observed patterns.^91^

Elderly Patients

Key considerations encompass:

1. Hypoglycemia vulnerability: Heightened focus on hypoglycemia prevention, particularly when cognitive impairment is present.^92,93^

2. Modified targets: Less stringent TIR goals (typically 70-180 mg/dL for >50% of time) with emphasis on minimizing TBR (<5% below 70 mg/dL).^94^

3. Medication simplification: Using CGM data to guide potential de-intensification of complex regimens.^95,96^

4. Cognitive and functional status: Correlation between glucose patterns and cognitive function or activities of daily living.^97^

 Hospital Settings

Emerging applications in inpatient care focus on:

1. Critical illness: Identification of dysglycemic patterns in ICU settings to guide insulin infusion protocols.^98,99^

2. Perioperative monitoring: Preventing adverse glycemic events during surgical procedures and recovery.^100^

3. Corticosteroid therapy: Capturing characteristic patterns associated with glucocorticoid treatment to guide insulin adjustment.^101,102^

4. Transition planning: Using inpatient CGM data to inform post-discharge medication regimens and education needs.^103^

 Emerging Metrics and Advanced Interpretation

 

Beyond Traditional Metrics

Newer approaches to CGM data interpretation include:

1. Glucose Management Indicator (GMI): Replacing estimated A1c with a metric more directly tied to mean glucose from CGM.^104^

2. GRI (Glycemic Risk Index): Composite scores that weight both hyperglycemic and hypoglycemic excursions based on clinical risk.^105,106^

3. MODD (Mean Of Daily Differences): Assessment of day-to-day glycemic variability by comparing glucose values at the same time on consecutive days.^107^

4. CONGA (Continuous Overall Net Glycemic Action): Measurement of within-day glycemic variability.^108^

5. MAGE (Mean Amplitude of Glycemic Excursions): Quantification of significant glycemic swings beyond standard deviation.^109,110^

6. LBGI and HBGI (Low and High Blood Glucose Indices): Transformed glucose values that give higher weights to hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic readings, respectively.^111^

 

Integration with Artificial Intelligence and Decision Support

Advanced analytical approaches include:

1. Pattern recognition algorithms: Automated identification of recurrent patterns and correlations with behaviors or interventions.^112,113^

2. Predictive alerts: Machine learning models that forecast impending hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia based on trend analysis.^114,115^

3. Decision support systems: Integration of CGM data with clinical guidelines to provide treatment recommendations.^116,117^

4. Digital phenotyping: Identification of distinct glycemic response patterns that may guide personalized therapeutic approaches.^118^

Challenges in CGM Interpretation

Despite standardization efforts, several challenges persist:

1. Data overload: The volume of information can be overwhelming for both clinicians and patients, potentially leading to clinical inertia or decision fatigue.^119,120^

2. Inter-device differences: Variations in accuracy, lag time, and reporting methods across different CGM systems.^121^

3. Physiological considerations: Accounting for the lag between interstitial and blood glucose, particularly during rapid changes.^122,123^

4. Knowledge gaps: Limited training for many healthcare providers in systematic CGM data interpretation.^124^

5. Resource constraints: Time limitations in clinical settings that may inhibit comprehensive analysis.^125,126^

6. Individual variability: Differences in glycemic responses to similar stimuli across individuals, necessitating personalized reference ranges.^127^

Future Directions

The field of CGM interpretation continues to evolve rapidly, with several promising developments:

1. Integrated platforms: Comprehensive systems that combine CGM data with other health metrics such as physical activity, sleep patterns, stress levels, and dietary information.^128,129^

2. Closed-loop systems: Increasingly sophisticated automated insulin delivery systems that interpret CGM data and adjust insulin delivery without user intervention.^130,131^

3. Non-invasive technologies: Development of truly non-invasive glucose monitoring solutions that may increase adoption and data availability.^132,133^

4. Population health applications: Aggregation and analysis of CGM data across populations to identify broader patterns and determinants of glycemic health.^134^

5. Integration with electronic health records: Seamless incorporation of CGM data and interpretations into clinical workflows.^135,136^

6. Standardized clinical pathways: Evidence-based protocols for responding to specific CGM patterns across various clinical scenarios.^137^

 Conclusions

Continuous glucose monitoring has transformed our approach to diabetes management by providing unprecedented insights into glycemic patterns and variability. Effective clinical interpretation of CGM data requires a systematic approach that moves beyond isolated readings to identify meaningful patterns and guide targeted interventions.

Standardized metrics and reporting formats have enhanced communication and consistency, but the true value of CGM lies in the translation of complex data into actionable clinical decisions. As technologies and analytical approaches continue to advance, ongoing education for healthcare providers and patients remains essential to maximize the benefits of this transformative technology.

By embracing a structured framework for CGM interpretation that considers individual patient contexts, treatment goals, and contributing factors, clinicians can leverage this rich data source to optimize diabetes management and improve outcomes across diverse patient populations.

 References

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(8):1593-1603.

2. Beck RW, Bergenstal RM, Riddlesworth TD, et al. Validation of time in range as an outcome measure for diabetes clinical trials. Diabetes Care. 2019;42(3):400-405.

3. Rodbard D. Continuous glucose monitoring: a review of recent studies demonstrating improved glycemic outcomes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2017;19(S3):S25-S37.

4. Pickup JC, Freeman SC, Sutton AJ. Glycaemic control in type 1 diabetes during real time continuous glucose monitoring compared with self monitoring of blood glucose: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials using individual patient data. BMJ. 2011;343:d3805.

5. Lind M, Polonsky W, Hirsch IB, et al. Continuous glucose monitoring vs conventional therapy for glycemic control in adults with type 1 diabetes treated with multiple daily insulin injections: the GOLD randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2017;317(4):379-387.

6. Petrie JR, Peters AL, Bergenstal RM, et al. Improving the clinical value and utility of CGM systems: issues and recommendations. Diabetologia. 2017;60(12):2319-2328.

7. Klonoff DC. Continuous glucose monitoring: roadmap for 21st century diabetes therapy. Diabetes Care. 2005;28(5):1231-1239.

8. Edelman SV, Argento NB, Pettus J, Hirsch IB. Clinical implications of real-time and intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Care. 2018;41(11):2265-2274.

9. Heinemann L, Freckmann G, Ehrmann D, et al. Real-time continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 1 diabetes and impaired hypoglycaemia awareness or severe hypoglycaemia treated with multiple daily insulin injections (HypoDE): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2018;391(10128):1367-1377.

10. Christiansen MP, Klaff LJ, Brazg R, et al. A prospective multicenter evaluation of the accuracy of a novel implanted continuous glucose sensor: PRECISE II. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2018;20(3):197-206.

11. Bergenstal RM, Tamborlane WV, Ahmann A, et al. Effectiveness of sensor-augmented insulin-pump therapy in type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(4):311-320.

12. Ajjan RA, Cummings MH, Jennings P, et al. Accuracy of flash glucose monitoring and continuous glucose monitoring technologies: Implications for clinical practice. Diab Vasc Dis Res. 2018;15(3):175-184.

13. Aleppo G, Ruedy KJ, Riddlesworth TD, et al. REPLACE-BG: A randomized trial comparing continuous glucose monitoring with and without routine blood glucose monitoring in adults with well-controlled type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2017;40(4):538-545.

14. Brown SA, Kovatchev BP, Raghinaru D, et al. Six-month randomized, multicenter trial of closed-loop control in type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(18):1707-1717.

15. Thabit H, Tauschmann M, Allen JM, et al. Home use of an artificial beta cell in type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(22):2129-2140.

16. Garg SK, Akturk HK. Flash glucose monitoring: The future is here. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2017;19(S3):S1-S3.

17. Forlenza GP, Argento NB, Laffel LM. Practical considerations on the use of continuous glucose monitoring in pediatrics and older adults and nonadjunctive use. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2017;19(S3):S13-S20.

18. Danne T, Nimri R, Battelino T, et al. International consensus on use of continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Care. 2017;40(12):1631-1640.

19. Bergenstal RM, Ahmann AJ, Bailey T, et al. Recommendations for standardizing glucose reporting and analysis to optimize clinical decision making in diabetes: the Ambulatory Glucose Profile (AGP). Diabetes Technol Ther. 2013;15(3):198-211.

20. Vigersky RA, McMahon C. The relationship of hemoglobin A1C to time-in-range in patients with diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2019;21(2):81-85.

21. Beck RW, Riddlesworth TD, Ruedy K, et al. Continuous glucose monitoring versus usual care in patients with type 2 diabetes receiving multiple daily insulin injections: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2017;167(6):365-374.

22. Polonsky WH, Fisher L, Hessler D, Edelman SV. What is so tough about self-monitoring of blood glucose? Perceived obstacles among patients with Type 2 diabetes. Diabet Med. 2014;31(1):40-46.

23. International Hypoglycaemia Study Group. Glucose concentrations of less than 3.0 mmol/L (54 mg/dL) should be reported in clinical trials: a joint position statement of the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2017;40(1):155-157.

24. Riddlesworth TD, Beck RW, Gal RL, et al. Optimal sampling duration for continuous glucose monitoring to determine long-term glycemic control. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2018;20(4):314-316.

25. Bergenstal RM, Beck RW, Close KL, et al. Glucose management indicator (GMI): a new term for estimating A1C from continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Care. 2018;41(11):2275-2280.

26. Monnier L, Colette C, Wojtusciszyn A, et al. Toward defining the threshold between low and high glucose variability in diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2017;40(7):832-838.

27. Rodbard D. Glucose variability: a review of clinical applications and research developments. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2018;20(S2):S25-S215.

28. Kovatchev BP, Cobelli C. Glucose variability: timing, risk analysis, and relationship to hypoglycemia in diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2016;39(4):502-510.

29. Nathan DM, Kuenen J, Borg R, et al. Translating the A1C assay into estimated average glucose values. Diabetes Care. 2008;31(8):1473-1478.

30. Riddlesworth TD, Beck RW, Gal RL, et al. Optimal sampling duration for continuous glucose monitoring to determine long-term glycemic control. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2018;20(4):314-316.

31. Bergenstal RM, Gal RL, Connor CG, et al. Racial differences in the relationship of glucose concentrations and hemoglobin A1c levels. Ann Intern Med. 2017;167(2):95-102.

32. Xing D, Kollman C, Beck RW, et al. Optimal sampling intervals to assess long-term glycemic control using continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2011;13(3):351-358.

33. Johnson ML, Martens TW, Criego AB, et al. Utilizing the ambulatory glucose profile to standardize and implement continuous glucose monitoring in clinical practice. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2019;21(S2):S217-S225.

34. Matthaei S, DeAlaiz RA, Bosi E, et al. Consensus recommendations for the use of Ambulatory Glucose Profile in clinical practice. Br J Diabetes Vasc Dis. 2014;14(4):153-157.

35. Kruger DF, Edelman SV, Hinnen DA, Parkin CG. Reference guide for integrating continuous glucose monitoring into clinical practice. Diabetes Educ. 2019;45(1_suppl):3S-20S.

36. Rodbard D. Interpretation of continuous glucose monitoring data: glycemic variability and quality of glycemic control. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2009;11(S1):S55-S67.

37. Hirsch IB, Verderese CA. Professional flash continuous glucose monitoring with ambulatory glucose profile reporting to supplement A1C: rationale and practical implementation. Endocr Pract. 2017;23(11):1333-1344.

38. Monnier L, Colette C, Dejager S, Owens D. Magnitude of the dawn phenomenon and its impact on the overall glucose exposure in type 2 diabetes: is this of concern? Diabetes Care. 2013;36(12):4057-4062.

39. Carlson AL, Mullen DM, Bergenstal RM. Clinical use of continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2017;19(S2):S4-S11.

40. Advani A. Positioning time in range in diabetes management. Diabetologia. 2020;63(2):242-252.

41. Peyser TA, Balo AK, Buckingham BA, et al. Glycemic variability percentage: a novel method for assessing glycemic variability from continuous glucose monitor data. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2018;20(1):6-16.

42. Umpierrez GE, Klonoff DC. Diabetes technology update: use of insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitoring in the hospital. Diabetes Care. 2018;41(8):1579-1589.

43. Maahs DM, Buckingham BA, Castle JR, et al. Outcome measures for artificial pancreas clinical trials: a consensus report. Diabetes Care. 2016;39(7):1175-1179.

44. Reiterer F, Polterauer P, Schoemaker M, et al. Significance and reliability of MARD for the accuracy of CGM systems. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2017;11(1):59-67.

45. Oliver N, Gimenez M, Calhoun P, et al. Continuous glucose monitoring in people with type 1 diabetes on multiple-dose injection therapy: the relationship between glycemic metrics and HbA1c. Diabet Med. 2020;37(1):117-121.

46. McCall AL, Kovatchev BP. The median is not the only message: a clinician's perspective on mathematical analysis of glycemic variability and modeling in diabetes mellitus. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2009;3(1):3-11.

47. Garg SK, Weinzimer SA, Tamborlane WV, et al. Glucose outcomes with the in-home use of a hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery system in adolescents and adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2017;19(3):155-163.

48. Feig DS, Donovan LE, Corcoy R, et al. Continuous glucose monitoring in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes (CONCEPTT): a multicentre international randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2017;390(10110):2347-2359.

49. Bode BW, Schwartz S, Stubbs HA, Block JE. Glycemic characteristics in continuously monitored patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes: normative values. Diabetes Care. 2005;28(10):2361-2366.

50. Kovatchev BP, Cox DJ, Gonder-Frederick LA, Clarke W. Symmetrization of the blood glucose measurement scale and its applications. Diabetes Care. 1997;20(11):1655-1658.

51. Pettus JH, Edelman SV. Recommendations for using real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) data for insulin adjustments in type 1 diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2017;11(1):138-147.

52. Choudhary P, Rickels MR, Senior PA, et al. Evidence-informed clinical practice recommendations for treatment of type 1 diabetes complicated by problematic hypoglycemia. Diabetes Care. 2015;38(6):1016-1029.

53. Grunberger G, Sherr J, Allende M, et al. American Association of Clinical Endocrinology clinical practice guideline: the use of advanced technology in the management of persons with diabetes mellitus. Endocr Pract. 2021;27(6):505-537.

54. Riddlesworth TD, Price DA, Cohen ND, Beck RW. Hypoglycemic event frequency and the effect of continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 1 diabetes using multiple daily insulin injections. Diabetes Ther. 2017;8(4):947-951.

55. Riddell MC, Gallen IW, Smart CE, et al. Exercise management in type 1 diabetes: a consensus statement. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2017;5(5):377-390.

56. Ceriello A, Monnier L, Owens D. Glycaemic variability in diabetes: clinical and therapeutic implications. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2019;7(3):221-230.

57. Mian Z, Hermayer KL, Jenkins A. Continuous glucose monitoring: review of an innovation in diabetes management. Am J Med Sci. 2019;358(5):332-339.

58. Reutrakul S, Mokhlesi B. Obstructive sleep apnea and diabetes: a state of the art review. Chest. 2017;152(5):1070-1086.

59. Battelino T, Phillip M, Bratina N, et al. Effect of continuous glucose monitoring on hypoglycemia in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2011;34(4):795-800.

60. Rodbard D. Continuous glucose monitoring: a review of successes, challenges, and opportunities. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2016;18(S2):S3-S13.

61. Bergenstal RM, Tamborlane WV, Ahmann A, et al. Effectiveness of sensor-augmented insulin-pump therapy in type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(4):311-320.

62. Peyrot M, Rubin RR, Lauritzen T, et al. Psychosocial problems and barriers to improved diabetes management: results of the Cross-National Diabetes Attitudes, Wishes and Needs (DAWN) Study. Diabet Med. 2005;22(10):1379-1385.

63. Foster NC, Beck RW, Miller KM, et al. State of type 1 diabetes management and outcomes from the T1D Exchange in 2016-2018. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2019;21(2):66-72.

64. Cryer PE. Hypoglycemia in type 1 diabetes mellitus. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am. 2010;39(3):641-654.

65. Bergenstal RM, Klonoff DC, Garg SK, et al. Threshold-based insulin-pump interruption for reduction of hypoglycemia. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(3):224-232.

66. 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(4):371-378.

67. Hermanides J, Nørgaard K, Bruttomesso D, et al. Sensor-augmented pump therapy lowers HbA1c in suboptimally controlled type 1 diabetes; a randomized controlled trial. Diabet Med. 2011;28(10):1158-1167.

68. Choudhary P, Ramasamy S, Green L, et al. Real-time continuous glucose monitoring significantly reduces severe hypoglycemia in hypoglycemia-unaware patients with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2013;36(12):4160-4162.

69. Taleb N, Emami A, Suppere C, et al. Comparison of two continuous glucose monitoring systems, Dexcom G4 Platinum and Medtronic Paradigm Veo Enlite system, at rest and during exercise. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2016;18(9):561-567.

70. Sherr JL, Tauschmann M, Battelino T, et al. ISPAD Clinical Practice Consensus Guidelines 2018: diabetes technologies. Pediatr Diabetes. 2018;19(Suppl 27):302-325.

71. Messer LH, Cook PF, Tanenbaum ML, et al. CGM benefits and burdens: two brief measures of continuous glucose monitoring. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2019;13(6):1135-1141.

72. Charleer S, De Block C, Van Huffel L, et al. Quality of life and glucose control after 1 year of nationwide reimbursement of intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring in adults living with type 1 diabetes (FUTURE): a prospective observational real-world cohort study. Diabetes Care. 2020;43(2):389-397.

73. Vigersky RA, Fonda SJ, Chellappa M, et al. Short- and long-term effects of real-time continuous glucose monitoring in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2012;35(1):32-38.

74. Ehrhardt NM, Chellappa M, Walker MS, et al. The effect of real-time continuous glucose monitoring on glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2011;5(3):668-675.

75. Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Continuous Glucose Monitoring Study Group. Effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring in a clinical care environment: evidence from the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation continuous glucose monitoring (JDRF-CGM) trial. Diabetes Care. 2010;33(1):17-22.

76. Martens T, Beck RW, Bailey R, et al. Effect of continuous glucose monitoring on glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2021;325(22):2262-2272.

77. Haak T, Hanaire H, Ajjan R, et al. Flash glucose-sensing technology as a replacement for blood glucose monitoring for the management of insulin-treated type 2 diabetes: a multicenter, open-label randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Ther. 2017;8(1):55-73.

78. Yaron M, Roitman E, Aharon-Hananel G, et al. Effect of flash glucose monitoring technology on glycemic control and treatment satisfaction in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2019;42(7):1178-1184.

79. Ajjan RA, Jackson N, Thomson SA. Reduction in HbA1c using professional flash glucose monitoring in insulin-treated type 2 diabetes patients managed in primary and secondary care settings: a pilot, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Diab Vasc Dis Res. 2019;16(4):385-395.

80. Murphy HR, Rayman G, Lewis K, et al. Effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring in pregnant women with diabetes: randomised clinical trial. BMJ. 2008;337:a1680.

81. Secher AL, Ringholm L, Andersen HU, et al. The effect of real-time continuous glucose monitoring in pregnant women with diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care. 2013;36(7):1877-1883.

82. Scott EM, Feig DS, Murphy HR, Law GR. Continuous glucose monitoring in pregnancy: importance of analyzing temporal profiles to understand clinical outcomes. Diabetes Care. 2020;43(6):1178-1184.

83. Stewart ZA, Wilinska ME, Hartnell S, et al. Closed-loop insulin delivery during pregnancy in women with type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(7):644-654.

84. Murphy HR, Feig DS, Sanchez JJ, et al. Modelling potential cost savings from use of real-time continuous glucose monitoring in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes. Diabet Med. 2019;36(12):1652-1658.

85. Law GR, Alnaji A, Alrefaii L, et al. Suboptimal nocturnal glucose control is associated with large for gestational age in treated gestational diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care. 2019;42(5):810-815.

86. DiMeglio LA, Acerini CL, Codner E, et al. ISPAD Clinical Practice Consensus Guidelines 2018: glycemic control targets and glucose monitoring for children, adolescents, and young adults with diabetes. Pediatr Diabetes. 2018;19(Suppl 27):105-114.

87. Barnard KD, Wysocki T, Allen JM, et al. Closing the loop overnight at home setting: psychosocial impact for adolescents with type 1 diabetes and their parents. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2014;2(1):e000025.

88. Laffel LM, Kanapka LG, Beck RW, et al. Effect of continuous glucose monitoring on glycemic control in adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2020;323(23):2388-2396.

89. Buckingham BA, Raghinaru D, Cameron F, et al. Predictive low-glucose insulin suspension reduces duration of nocturnal hypoglycemia in children without increasing ketosis. Diabetes Care. 2015;38(7):1197-1204.

90. Messer LH, Forlenza GP, Sherr JL, et al. Optimizing hybrid closed-loop therapy in adolescents and emerging adults using the MiniMed 670G system. Diabetes Care. 2018;41(4):789-796.

91. Cemeroglu AP, Stone R, Kleis L, et al. Use of a real-time continuous glucose monitoring system in children and young adults on insulin pump therapy: patients' and caregivers' perception of benefit. Pediatr Diabetes. 2010;11(3):182-187.

92. Munshi MN, Segal AR, Suhl E, et al. Frequent hypoglycemia among elderly patients with poor glycemic control. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(4):362-364.

93. Sinclair AJ, Dunning T, Rodriguez-Mañas L. Diabetes in older people: new insights and remaining challenges. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2015;3(4):275-285.

94. Pratley RE, Kanapka LG, Rickels MR, et al. Effect of continuous glucose monitoring on hypoglycemia in older adults with type 1 diabetes: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2020;323(23):2397-2406.

95. Lipska KJ, Krumholz H, Soones T, Lee SJ. Polypharmacy in the aging patient: a review of glycemic control in older adults with type 2 diabetes. JAMA. 2016;315(10):1034-1045.

96. Munshi MN, Slyne C, Segal AR, et al. Simplification of insulin regimen in older adults and risk of hypoglycemia. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(7):1023-1025.

97. Yeoh E, Choudhary P, Nwokolo M, et al. Relationship between HbA1c and indices of glucose control derived from continuous glucose monitoring in older compared with younger adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2017;19(2):73-80.

98. Boom DT, Sechterberger MK, Rijkenberg S, et al. Insulin treatment guided by subcutaneous continuous glucose monitoring compared to frequent point-of-care measurement in critically ill patients: a randomized controlled trial. Crit Care. 2014;18(4):453.

99. Bochicchio GV, Nasraway S, Moore L, et al. Results of a multicenter prospective pivotal trial of the first inline continuous glucose monitor in critically ill patients. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2017;82(6):1049-1054.

100. Gomez AM, Umpierrez GE. Continuous glucose monitoring in insulin-treated patients in non-ICU settings. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2014;8(5):930-936.

101. Spanakis EK, Boris JR, Raghavan S, et al. Sensor augmented continuous glucose monitoring and its impact on hospitalized patient outcomes. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2018;12(1):29-34.

102. Levitt DL, Silver KD, Spanakis EK. Inpatient continuous glucose monitoring and glycemic outcomes. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2017;11(5):1028-1035.

103. Spanakis EK, Levitt DL, Siddiqui T, et al. The effect of continuous glucose monitoring in preventing inpatient hypoglycemia in general wards: the glucose telemetry system. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2018;12(1):20-25.

104. Bergenstal RM, Beck RW, Close KL, et al. Glucose management indicator (GMI): a new term for estimating A1C from continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Care. 2018;41(11):2275-2280.

105. Rodbard D. Metrics to evaluate quality of glycemic control: comparison of time in range, hypoglycemic, and hyperglycemic indices derived from blood glucose and continuous glucose monitoring data. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2020;14(3):614-626.

106. Augstein P, Heinke P, Vogt L, et al. Q-score: development of a new metric for continuous glucose monitoring that enables stratification of antihyperglycaemic therapies. BMC Endocr Disord. 2015;15:22.

107. Kovatchev BP, Shields D, Breton M. Graphical and numerical evaluation of continuous glucose sensing time lag. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2009;11(3):139-143.

108. McDonnell CM, Donath SM, Vidmar SI, et al. A novel approach to continuous glucose analysis utilizing glycemic variation. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2005;7(2):253-263.

109. Service FJ, Molnar GD, Rosevear JW, et al. Mean amplitude of glycemic excursions, a measure of diabetic instability. Diabetes. 1970;19(9):644-655.

110. Monnier L, Colette C, Owens DR. Glycemic variability: the third component of the dysglycemia in diabetes. Is it important? How to measure it? J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2008;2(6):1094-1100.

111. Kovatchev BP, Otto E, Cox D, et al. Evaluation of a new measure of blood glucose variability in diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2006;29(11):2433-2438.

112. Dubosson F, Ranvier JE, Bromuri S, et al. The open D1NAMO dataset: A multi-modal dataset for research on non-invasive type 1 diabetes management. Inform Med Unlocked. 2018;13:92-100.

113. Cobelli C, Renard E, Kovatchev B. Artificial pancreas: past, present, future. Diabetes. 2011;60(11):2672-2682.

114. Sparacino G, Zanderigo F, Corazza S, et al. Glucose concentration can be predicted ahead in time from continuous glucose monitoring sensor time-series. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2007;54(5):931-937.

115. Baysal N, Cameron F, Buckingham BA, et al. A novel method to detect pressure-induced sensor attenuations (PISA) in an artificial pancreas. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2014;8(6):1091-1096.

116. Nimri R, Danne T, Kordonouri O, et al. The "Glucositter" overnight automated closed loop system for type 1 diabetes: a randomized crossover trial. Pediatr Diabetes. 2013;14(3):159-167.

117. Pettus J, Edelman SV. Recommendations for using real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) data for insulin adjustments in type 1 diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2017;11(1):138-147.

118. Hall H, Perelman D, Breschi A, et al. Glucotypes reveal new patterns of glucose dysregulation. PLoS Biol. 2018;16(7):e2005143.

119. Polonsky WH, Hessler D, Ruedy KJ, Beck RW; DIAMOND Study Group. The impact of continuous glucose monitoring on markers of quality of life in adults with type 1 diabetes: further findings from the DIAMOND randomized clinical trial. Diabetes Care. 2017;40(6):736-741.

120. Pickup JC, Ford Holloway M, Samsi K. Real-time continuous glucose monitoring in type 1 diabetes: a qualitative framework analysis of patient narratives. Diabetes Care. 2015;38(4):544-550.

121. Bailey TS, Grunberger G, Bode BW, et al. American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology 2016 outpatient glucose monitoring consensus statement. Endocr Pract. 2016;22(2):231-261.

122. Basu A, Dube S, Slama M, et al. Time lag of glucose from intravascular to interstitial compartment in humans. Diabetes. 2013;62(12):4083-4087.

123. Biagi L, Bertachi A, Quirós C, et al. Accuracy of continuous glucose monitoring before, during, and after aerobic and anaerobic exercise in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Biosensors (Basel). 2018;8(1):22.

124. Shivers JP, Mackowiak L, Anhalt H, Zisser H. "Turn it off!": diabetes device alarm fatigue considerations for the present and the future. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2013;7(3):789-794.

125. Wong JC, Foster NC, Maahs DM, et al. Real-time continuous glucose monitoring among participants in the T1D Exchange clinic registry. Diabetes Care. 2014;37(10):2702-2709.

126. Klonoff DC, Kerr D. Overcoming barriers to adoption of digital health tools for diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2018;12(1):3-6.

127. Zeevi D, Korem T, Zmora N, et al. Personalized nutrition by prediction of glycemic responses. Cell. 2015;163(5):1079-1094.

128. Greenwood DA, Gee PM, Fatkin KJ, Peeples M. A systematic review of reviews evaluating technology-enabled diabetes self-management education and support. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2017;11(5):1015-1027.

129. Grosman B, Wu D, Parikh N, et al. Multi-night diagnostic value of glucose information from the FreeStyle Libre sensor. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2022;24(1):32-43.

130. Sharma S, Basu A, Kudva YC. 100 years of research on blood glucose dynamics and glucose sensing technology. Diabetes. 2022;71(4):582-594.

131. Bruttomesso D, Laviola L, Avogaro A, et al. The use of real time continuous glucose monitoring or flash glucose monitoring in the management of diabetes: A consensus view of Italian diabetes experts using the Delphi method. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2019;29(5):421-431.

132. Gao W, Emaminejad S, Nyein HYY, et al. Fully integrated wearable sensor arrays for multiplexed in situ perspiration analysis. Nature. 2016;529(7587):509-514.

133. Chen C, Zhao XL, Li ZH, et al. Current and emerging technology for continuous glucose monitoring. Sensors (Basel). 2017;17(1):182.

134. Baghbanpourasl A, Lauerman M, Escallier KE, Rydberg I. Mining glucose measurements with pattern recognition framework. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2021;23(3):163-174.

135. Draznin B, Gilden J, Golden SH, et al. Pathways to quality inpatient management of hyperglycemia and diabetes: a call to action. Diabetes Care. 2013;36(7):1807-1814.

136. El-Gayar O, Timsina P, Nawar N, Eid W. A systematic review of IT for diabetes self-management: are we there yet? Int J Med Inform. 2013;82(8):637-652.

137. Ceriello A, Colagiuri S, Gerich J, Tuomilehto J; Guideline Development Group. Guideline for management of postmeal glucose. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2008;18(4):S17-S33.