Expert Clinical Interpretation of Continuous Glucose Monitor Reports From Individuals Without Diabetes.

• Tác giả: David Ahn, Tadej Battelino, Steven V Edelman, David Fei, G Alexander Fleming, Guido Freckmann, Rodolfo J Galindo, Michael Joubert, M Cecilia Lansang, Honghuang Lin, Julia K Mader, Boris Mankovsky, Nestoras N Mathioudakis, Viswanathan Mohan, Joanne M Murabito, Anne L Peters, Brenton Prescott, Viral N Shah, Eleanor Shi, Elias K Spanakis, Nicole L Spartano, Devin W Steenkamp, Guhan Venkatesan, Kayo Waki, Maura E Walker, Howard A Wolpert, Eugene E Wright, Mihail Zilbermint
• Ngôn ngữ: eng
• Ký hiệu phân loại: 017.2 *+Classified catalogs of private and family libraries
• Thông tin xuất bản: United States : Journal of diabetes science and technology , 2025
• Bộ sưu tập: NCBI
• ID: 65378

Tóm tắt

 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 ( 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.