The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Glycemic variability modifies the relationship between time in range and hemoglobin A1c estimated from continuous glucose monitoring: A preliminary study
Abstract
Aims Although there is a linear relationship between time in range (TIR) and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), a great variability of calculated TIR values for a given HbA1c, and vice versa, has been reported. Whether glycemic variability accounts for part of this variability remains to be investigated.Methods The data of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) from 2559 patients with type 2 diabetes was analyzed. Glycemic variability was assessed by glucose coefficient of variation (CV), and estimated HbA1C (eHbA1c) was calculated from mean sensor glucose.Results A strong correlation between TIR and eHbA1c (r = -0.908) was observed. The slopes of regression lines fitted to TIR values as a function of eHbA1c differed significantly for individuals with varying degrees of CV, especially when patients were stratified as stable (CV < 36%) or unstable (CV ≥ 36%) glucose levels. For patients in the high- or low-range of eHbA1c, there was a high variability of TIR values according to CV.Conclusions Glycemic variability significantly mediates the relationship between TIR and eHbA1c, and should be taken into consideration when setting an individualized target of TIR.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
There is evidence that TIR varies significantly at a given mean glucose or HbA1c.
“Moreover, there is evidence that TIR varies significantly at a given mean glucose or HbA1c (24,25).”
From Time in Range in Relation to All-Cause and Cardiovascular Mortality in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A Prospective Cohort Study (2021) · cites this paper as [24]
Citations
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 14 · Cited by 49
Metadata
- Authors
- Lu, J., Ma, X., Zhang, L., Mo, Y., Lu, W., Zhu, W., Bao, Y., Jia, W., & Zhou, J.
- Affiliations
- Shanghai Jiao Tong University (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Zhou, Jian
- Venue
- Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-03
- Volume
- 161
- Pages
- 108032
- ISSN
- 0168-8227 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3003797986
- Cited by
- 49
- References
- 14
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 3
- FWCI
- 6.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Shanghai Municipal Education Commission
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
- Keywords
- glycemic variability, time in range, continuous glucose monitoring, type 2 diabetes, individualized glycemic targets
- MeSH terms
- Preliminary Data, Aged, Blood Glucose, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Hypoglycemic Agents, Insulin, Insulin Infusion Systems, Male, Middle Aged, Reference Values, Time Factors, Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review