Expert Clinical Interpretation of Continuous Glucose Monitor Reports From Individuals Without Diabetes
Authors' conclusion
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.
Study context
- Population
- Expert clinicians evaluating 20 potentially challenging Dexcom G6 Pro continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) reports (with HbA1c and fasting venous blood glucose) from individuals without diabetes20 CGM reports
- Participants
- 18 clinicians
- Outcome
- Agreement among clinicians in recommending clinical follow-up (Fleiss Kappa)
Methodological detailssurvey of expert clinicians, Fleiss Kappa interrater reliability
- Survey of expert clinicians
- Fleiss Kappa interrater reliability
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Agreement in recommending follow-up based on CGM report
Poor agreement (Fleiss Kappa)
0.36
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
Follow-up recommended for individuals with >2% time above range (>180 mg/dL), even if HbA1c <5.7% and fasting glucose <100 mg/dL
- Expert clinicians recommending follow-up (more than half, no clear consensus)
- 56-100%
Follow-up by mean glucose or GMI
- No observed trends for recommending follow-up based on mean glucose or GMI
Original publication
Expert Clinical Interpretation of Continuous Glucose Monitor Reports From Individuals Without Diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol. Published 12 February 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →