CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 146Diabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes Management and EducationDiabetes Treatment and Management

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Real-time CGM Is Superior to Flash Glucose Monitoring for Glucose Control in Type 1 Diabetes: The CORRIDA Randomized Controlled Trial

Open access
Hásková, Aneta, Radovnická, Lucie, Petruželková, Lenka, Parkin, Christopher G., Grunberger, George, Horová, Eva, Navrátilová, Vendula, Kádě, Ondřej, Matoulek, Martin, Prázný, Martin, Šoupal, Jan·2020·Diabetes Care
DOI 10.2337/dc20-0112PMC PMC7576432
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this trial was to compare the efficacy of real-time and intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM and isCGM, respectively) in maintaining optimal glycemic control. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this randomized study, adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and normal hypoglycemia awareness (Gold score <4) used rtCGM (Guardian Connect Mobile) or isCGM (FreeStyle Libre) during 4 days of physical activity (exercise phase) and in the subsequent 4 weeks at home (home phase). Primary end points were time in hypoglycemia (<3.9 mmol/L [<70 mg/dL]) and time in range (3.9–10.0 mmol/L [70–180 mg/dL]). The isCGM group wore an additional masked Enlite sensor (iPro2) for 6 days to check for bias between the different sensors used by the rtCGM and isCGM systems. RESULTS: Sixty adults with T1D (mean age 38 ± 13 years; A1C 62 ± 12 mmol/mol [7.8 ± 1.1%]) were randomized to rtCGM (n = 30) or isCGM (n = 30). All participants completed the study. Percentage of time in hypoglycemia (<3.9 mmol/L [<70 mg/dL]) was lower among rtCGM versus isCGM participants in the exercise phase (6.8 ± 5.5% vs. 11.4 ± 8.6%, respectively; P = 0.018) and during the home phase (5.3 ± 2.5% vs. 7.3 ± 4.4%, respectively; P = 0.035). Hypoglycemia differences were significant and most notable during the night. rtCGM participants spent more time in range (3.9–10 mmol/L [70–180 mg/dL]) than isCGM participants throughout both the exercise (78.5 ± 10.2% vs. 69.7 ± 16%, respectively; P = 0.0149) and home (75.6 ± 9.7% vs. 67.4 ± 17.8%, respectively; P = 0.0339) phases. The results were robust to the insignificant bias between rtCGM and isCGM sensors that masked CGM found in the isCGM arm. CONCLUSIONS: rtCGM was superior to isCGM in reducing hypoglycemia and improving time in range in adults with T1D with normal hypoglycemia awareness, demonstrating the value of rtCGM alarms during exercise and in daily diabetes self-management.

Overview

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/dc20-0112

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 21 references

1 of the 21 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–146 of 146

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Hásková, A., Radovnická, L., Petruželková, L., Parkin, C. G., Grunberger, G., Horová, E., Navrátilová, V., Kádě, O., Matoulek, M., Prázný, M., & Šoupal, J.
Affiliations
  • 3rd Department of Internal Medicine, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
  • Masaryk Hospital, Ústí nad Labem, Czech Republic
  • Charles University (CZ)
  • CGParkin Communications, Inc., Henderson, NV
  • Grunberger Diabetes Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Šoupal, Jan
ORCID
Venue
Diabetes Care
Publisher
American Diabetes Association
Published
2020-08-28
Volume
43
Issue
11
Pages
2744-2750
ISSN
  • 0149-5992 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-5548
DOI
10.2337/dc20-0112
PMC
PMC7576432
OpenAlex
W3082218057
Cited by
146
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 39 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 15
FWCI
17.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.diabetesjournals.org/content/license (vor, 53 d)
Locations
  • Diabetes Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Agency for Healthcare Research (AZV) of the Czech Republic and Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic (15-26705A)
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
type 1 diabetes, real-time continuous glucose monitoring, intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring, glycemic control, hypoglycemia, time in range, physical activity, sensor bias, hypoglycemia awareness, FreeStyle Libre, HbA1c, hypoglycemia risk reduction
MeSH terms
Glycemic Control, Adult, Blood Glucose, Computer Systems, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Female, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Hypoglycemia, Hypoglycemic Agents, Male, Middle Aged, Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring, Exercise, Treatment Outcome, Computers, Handheld

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