| Title |
Improving the clinical value and utility of CGM systems: issues and recommendations
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Diabetologia, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00125-017-4463-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
John R. Petrie, Anne L. Peters, Richard M. Bergenstal, Reinhard W. Holl, G. Alexander Fleming, Lutz Heinemann |
| Abstract |
The first systems for continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) became available over 15 years ago. Many then believed CGM would revolutionise the use of intensive insulin therapy in diabetes; however, progress towards that vision has been gradual. Although increasing, the proportion of individuals using CGM rather than conventional systems for self-monitoring of blood glucose on a daily basis is still low in most parts of the world. Barriers to uptake include cost, measurement reliability (particularly with earlier-generation systems), human factors issues, lack of a standardised format for displaying results and uncertainty on how best to use CGM data to make therapeutic decisions. This scientific statement makes recommendations for systemic improvements in clinical use and regulatory (pre- and postmarketing) handling of CGM devices. The aim is to improve safety and efficacy in order to support the advancement of the technology in achieving its potential to improve quality of life and health outcomes for more people with diabetes. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 55 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 13 | 24% |
| United Kingdom | 10 | 18% |
| United States | 2 | 4% |
| Chile | 2 | 4% |
| Germany | 2 | 4% |
| France | 2 | 4% |
| India | 1 | 2% |
| Denmark | 1 | 2% |
| Serbia | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 19 | 35% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 37 | 67% |
| Scientists | 9 | 16% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 8 | 15% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 59 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 8% |
| Researcher | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 11 | 19% |
| Unknown | 21 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 20% |
| Engineering | 6 | 10% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 3 | 5% |
| Psychology | 3 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 11 | 19% |
| Unknown | 22 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. 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 08 December 2017.
All research outputs
#1,142,449
of 24,041,016 outputs
Outputs from Diabetologia
#635
of 5,207 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,549
of 331,549 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diabetologia
#23
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,041,016 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,207 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 331,549 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.