Cited by 272Diabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes Management and EducationDiabetes Treatment and Management

Metrics for glycaemic control - from HbA1c to continuous glucose monitoring

Kovatchev, Boris P.·2017·Nature Reviews Endocrinology

Abstract

As intensive treatment to lower levels of HbA 1c characteristically results in an increased risk of hypoglycaemia, patients with diabetes mellitus face a life-long optimization problem to reduce average levels of glycaemia and postprandial hyperglycaemia while simultaneously avoiding hypoglycaemia. This optimization can only be achieved in the context of lowering glucose variability. In this Review, I discuss topics that are related to the assessment, quantification and optimal control of glucose fluctuations in diabetes mellitus. I focus on markers of average glycaemia and the utility and/or shortcomings of HbA 1c as a 'gold-standard' metric of glycaemic control; the notion that glucose variability is characterized by two principal dimensions, amplitude and time; measures of glucose variability that are based on either self-monitoring of blood glucose data or continuous glucose monitoring (CGM); and the control of average glycaemia and glucose variability through the use of pharmacological agents or closed-loop control systems commonly referred to as the 'artificial pancreas'. I conclude that HbA 1c and the various available metrics of glucose variability reflect the management of diabetes mellitus on different timescales, ranging from months (for HbA 1c) to minutes (for CGM). Comprehensive assessment of the dynamics of glycaemic fluctuations is therefore crucial for providing accurate and complete information to the patient, physician, automated decision-support or artificial-pancreas system.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nrendo.2017.3

Cites

124 of 124 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kovatchev, B. P.
Affiliations
University of Virginia (US)
Corresponding author
Kovatchev, Boris P.
Venue
Nature Reviews Endocrinology
Published
2017-03-17
Volume
13
Issue
7
Pages
425-436
ISSN
  • 1759-5029 (ISSN-L)
  • 1759-5037
OpenAlex
W2596063051
Cited by
272
References
124
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 8
FWCI
3.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nature Reviews Endocrinology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Sanofi
  • Dexcom
  • National Institutes of Health (5r01dk051562-23)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R01-DK-051562)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
Keywords
glycemic control, HbA1c, glycemic variability, continuous glucose monitoring, diabetes mellitus, hypoglycemia, postprandial hyperglycemia, self-monitoring of blood glucose, artificial pancreas, feedback control
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Blood Glucose, Diabetes Mellitus, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring, Biomarkers

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