CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 85Diabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes Management and EducationDiabetes Treatment and Management

Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Subjects With Type 1 Diabetes on Multiple Daily Injections Versus Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion Therapy

Open access
Garg, Satish K., Voelmle, Mary K., Beatson, Christie R., Miller, Hayley A., Crew, Lauren B., Freson, Brandon J., Hazenfield, Rachel M.·2011·Diabetes Care
DOI 10.2337/dc10-1852PMC PMC3041183
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare use of continuous glucose monitoring in subjects with type 1 diabetes on multiple daily injection (MDI) therapy versus continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) therapy for 6 months. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Sixty type 1 diabetic adults with similar baseline characteristics, using either MDI (n = 30) or CSII (n = 30) therapy, were enrolled in this 6-month prospective study. Subjects were instructed to wear the DexCom SevenPLUS continuous glucose monitor at all times throughout the study. All subjects were initially blinded from the continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) glucose data. After 4 weeks of blinded CGM use, the CGM was unblinded, making glucose data available to the patient. The CGM remained in the unblinded state for the remainder of the study (20 weeks). Clinic visits occurred every 4 weeks, at which time A1C values were collected and CGM data were downloaded. RESULTS: Mean baseline (± SD) A1C was 7.61 (± 0.76) and 7.63 (± 0.68) for CSII and MDI, respectively (P > 0.05). Without any significant therapy change, A1C decrease at 12 weeks was similar in both groups (P = 0.03). When compared with the blinded phase, unblinded use of CGM was associated with similar but significant reductions in glycemic control and variability parameters. In addition, both therapy groups had similar changes in mean glucose and glucose variability indexes at 3 and 6 months (ITT analysis, P > 0.05). Predefined per protocol analysis (sensor use at least 6 days/week) showed greater improvement in time spent in target range glycemia, 3.9-10.0 mmol/L (70-180 mg/dL), in the CSII group. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that CGM provides similar benefits in glucose control for patients using MDI or CSII therapy.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2337/dc10-1852

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Garg et al. (2011) found an 8.9% reduction in MAGE (P < 0.01).

    “while Garg et al. (2011) found an 8.9 % reduction in MAGE (P-value<0.01).”

    From Effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring systems on glycemic control in adults with type 1 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis (2025) · cites this paper as Garg et al. (2011)

    The Results (Glycemic variability indexes) report that MAGE fell during the six-month unblinded period. Table 2 (Results, Glycemic excursions; page not available) gives P < 0.001 for the blinded-versus-unblinded comparison, supporting P < 0.01, but it does not report an 8.9% reduction; the displayed MAGE values do not yield that percentage for either group. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 24 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [21]Garg SK Role of continuous glucose monitoring in patients with diabetes using multiple daily insulin injections. Infusystems USA 2009; 6: 9– 14

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Garg, S. K., Voelmle, M. K., Beatson, C. R., Miller, H. A., Crew, L. B., Freson, B. J., & Hazenfield, R. M.
Affiliations
University of Colorado Anschutz (US)
Corresponding author
Garg, Satish K.
ORCID
Venue
Diabetes Care
Publisher
American Diabetes Association
Published
2011-02-17
Volume
34
Issue
3
Pages
574-579
ISSN
  • 0149-5992 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-5548
DOI
10.2337/dc10-1852
PMC
PMC3041183
OpenAlex
W1988644744
Cited by
85
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 12
FWCI
7.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Diabetes Care (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • American Diabetes Association
  • Dexcom
  • European Association for the Study of Diabetes
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
continuous glucose monitoring, type 1 diabetes, multiple daily insulin injections, insulin pump therapy, glycemic control, glycemic variability, HbA1c, time in range, insulin therapy comparison
MeSH terms
Adult, Blood Glucose, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Drug Administration Schedule, Female, Humans, Injections, Subcutaneous, Insulin, Male, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Infusions, Subcutaneous

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