Enhanced Detection of Adverse Glycemic Events in Hospital with Unmasked Continuous Glucose Monitoring Versus Point-of-Care Testing in People with Type 1 Diabetes
Authors' conclusion
Almost all AGE in hospital were detected by CGM, with few detected by POC alone. Compared to POC, CGM detected AGE earlier, with a lesser glycemic extreme, although unmasked CGM use may have influenced these results. Detecting AGE in hospital appears superior with CGM compared to POC glucose alone in people with T1D.
Study context
- Population
- Non-critically ill hospitalized adults with T1D who continued wearing their unmasked continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) during admission
- Participants
- 253 admissions
- Exposure
- Unmasked CGM vs point-of-care (POC) blood glucose testing for detection of adverse glycaemic events
- Outcome
- AGE detection: hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dL) and hyperglycemia (>180 mg/dL)
Methodological detailsmulticentre
- Multicentre
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
- CGM detected hyperglycemia before POC, median [IQR] minutes
- 70 [22, 166]
- CGM detected hypoglycemia before POC, median [IQR] minutes
- 38 [14, 65]
- CGM-detected adverse glycemic events (AGE) not detected by POC
- A quarter
- POC-detected AGE not detected by CGM
- 3%
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
- CGM glucose measures analysed
- 127 837
- POC glucose measures analysed
- 5508
- CGM-detected hyperglycemia AGE
- 1391
- CGM-detected hypoglycemia AGE
- 317
Original publication
Enhanced Detection of Adverse Glycemic Events in Hospital with Unmasked Continuous Glucose Monitoring Versus Point-of-Care Testing in People with Type 1 Diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol. Published 2 December 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →