↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in Diabetes Therapy, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#11 of 1,145)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
19 news outlets
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
465 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
436 Mendeley
Title
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
Published in
Diabetes Therapy, December 2016
DOI 10.1007/s13300-016-0223-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas Haak, Hélène Hanaire, Ramzi Ajjan, Norbert Hermanns, Jean-Pierre Riveline, Gerry Rayman

Abstract

Glycemic control in participants with insulin-treated diabetes remains challenging. We assessed safety and efficacy of new flash glucose-sensing technology to replace self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG). This open-label randomized controlled study (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02082184) enrolled adults with type 2 diabetes on intensive insulin therapy from 26 European diabetes centers. Following 2 weeks of blinded sensor wear, 2:1 (intervention/control) randomization (centrally, using biased-coin minimization dependant on study center and insulin administration) was to control (SMBG) or intervention (glucose-sensing technology). Participants and investigators were not masked to group allocation. Primary outcome was difference in HbA1c at 6 months in the full analysis set. Prespecified secondary outcomes included time in hypoglycemia, effect of age, and patient satisfaction. Participants (n = 224) were randomized (149 intervention, 75 controls). At 6 months, there was no difference in the change in HbA1c between intervention and controls: -3.1 ± 0.75 mmol/mol, [-0.29 ± 0.07% (mean ± SE)] and -3.4 ± 1.04 mmol/mol (-0.31 ± 0.09%) respectively; p = 0.8222. A difference was detected in participants aged <65 years [-5.7 ± 0.96 mmol/mol (-0.53 ± 0.09%) and -2.2 ± 1.31 mmol/mol (-0.20 ± 0.12%), respectively; p = 0.0301]. Time in hypoglycemia <3.9 mmol/L (70 mg/dL) reduced by 0.47 ± 0.13 h/day [mean ± SE (p = 0.0006)], and <3.1 mmol/L (55 mg/dL) reduced by 0.22 ± 0.07 h/day (p = 0.0014) for intervention participants compared with controls; reductions of 43% and 53%, respectively. SMBG frequency, similar at baseline, decreased in intervention participants from 3.8 ± 1.4 tests/day (mean ± SD) to 0.3 ± 0.7, remaining unchanged in controls. Treatment satisfaction was higher in intervention compared with controls (DTSQ 13.1 ± 0.50 (mean ± SE) and 9.0 ± 0.72, respectively; p < 0.0001). No serious adverse events or severe hypoglycemic events were reported related to sensor data use. Forty-two serious events [16 (10.7%) intervention participants, 12 (16.0%) controls] were not device-related. Six intervention participants reported nine adverse events for sensor-wear reactions (two severe, six moderate, one mild). Flash glucose-sensing technology use in type 2 diabetes with intensive insulin therapy results in no difference in HbA1c change and reduced hypoglycemia, thus offering a safe, effective replacement for SMBG. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02082184. Abbott Diabetes Care.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 436 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 436 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 55 13%
Other 47 11%
Researcher 47 11%
Student > Bachelor 43 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 7%
Other 63 14%
Unknown 151 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 128 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 36 8%
Engineering 15 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 14 3%
Other 70 16%
Unknown 159 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 141. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 March 2024.
All research outputs
#291,602
of 25,359,594 outputs
Outputs from Diabetes Therapy
#11
of 1,145 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,145
of 434,438 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diabetes Therapy
#1
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,359,594 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,145 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 434,438 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.