Article Synopsis
- This study compared how three different continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems—FreeStyle Libre 3, Dexcom G7, and Medtronic Simplera—affect glucose measurements and decision-making in diabetes care.
- Participants wore all three systems simultaneously for 14 days, and results showed significant differences in the glucose readings provided by each one.
- The FreeStyle Libre 3 and Dexcom G7 were more consistent with each other, while the Medtronic Simplera generally reported lower glucose levels, leading to potential discrepancies in treatment recommendations based on the system used.
Video Abstracts
Category Ranking
98%
Total Visits
921
Avg Visit Duration
2 minutes
Citations
20
Article Abstract
Objective: This study analyzed the differences in continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-derived metrics among three current-generation systems and evaluated their impact on therapeutic decision-making.
Research Design And Methods: Twenty-three participants wore the FreeStyle Libre 3, Dexcom G7, and Medtronic Simplera CGM systems for 14 days in parallel. CGM metrics were calculated for each participant and CGM system separately.
Results: The apparent glucose profile was influenced by the used CGM system, resulting in substantially different glycemic metrics among the three systems. Agreement between FreeStyle Libre 3 and Dexcom G7 was higher than with Medtronic Simplera, which showed lower glucose levels, on average. There were marked intraparticipant discrepancies that would have resulted in different therapeutic recommendations.
Conclusions: The CGM systems indicated discordant glycemic metrics, which should be considered in diabetes therapy. Different CGM systems should provide the same glucose readings and CGM-derived metrics when used by the same person.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|---|
| http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12178612 | PMC |
| http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/dc25-0129 | DOI Listing |
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
Impact of transitioning from conventional blood glucose monitoring to continuous glucose monitoring on glycemic control and self-management in adults with type 2 diabetes on oral glucose-lowering medications.
Diabetes Res Clin Pract
September 2025
Health Education Department, and Department of Endocrinology and Diabetes, Diabetes Treatment Center, Prince Sultan Military Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Background: Despite advances, glycemic control in people with type 2 diabetes (PwT2D) treated with oral antidiabetic medications (ADMs) often remains suboptimal. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has shown promise in diabetes management, offering real-time insights into glucose trends. This study evaluates the impact of transitioning from conventional self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) to CGM on glycemic outcomes and self-management in PwT2D receiving oral ADMs.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEvaluation of Change in Medication Regimen Complexity-ICU (MRC-ICU) Score Following Implementation of a Virtual Intensive Care Model in a Multisite, Rural Health-System.
J Pharm Pract
September 2025
Department of Pharmacy, Guthrie Robert Packer Hospital, Sayre, PA, USA.
Telehealth in the ICU (Tele-ICU) may improve patient outcomes and optimize utilization of high acuity intensive care unit (ICU) beds. However, the relationship between tele-ICU and medication regimen complexity-ICU (MRC-ICU) score is unexplored. To assess the effect of tele-ICU on MRC-ICU score and describe pharmacists' work.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFGlucose360: An Open-Source Python Platform with Event-Based Integration for Continuous Glucose Monitoring Data Analysis.
Diabetes Technol Ther
September 2025
Department of Genetics, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices provide real-time actionable data on blood glucose levels, making them essential tools for effective glucose management. Integrating blood glucose data with food log data is crucial for understanding how dietary choices impact glucose levels. Despite their utility, many CGM applications lack integration with other external services, such as food trackers, and do not generate useful glycemic variability (GV) metrics or advanced visualizations.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEffectiveness of the Stage 4 Smart Insulin Pen DIA:CONN P8 for Glycemic Control in a Real-World Setting.
Diabetes Metab J
September 2025
Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
This study evaluated whether a stage 4 smart insulin pen (SIP) provides superior glycemic control compared with a traditional insulin pen (TIP) in individuals with intensively insulin-treated diabetes. Forty-two adults with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), multiple daily insulin injections, and no prior SIP use were included. After diabetes self-management education (DSME), the SIP group (n=21) initiated SIP, whereas the TIP group (n=21) continued their usual regimens.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFBiases in Glucose Metrics Are Directly Related to Low Coverage of Continuous Glucose Monitoring: Insights from Diverse Populations.
Diabetes Technol Ther
September 2025
Department of Health Science and Technology, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.
The aim was to investigate the association between continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data coverage and glycemic metrics. This study included over 97,000 clinical study participants and real-world data from type 1 or type 2 diabetes treated with multiple daily insulin injections, closed-loop systems, or basal-only insulin regimens. Over 35 million days of CGM data were analyzed with multilevel modeling.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF