Diabetes Healthcare Professionals Use Multiple Continuous Glucose Monitoring Data Indicators to Assess Glucose Management
| Autor: | Tong Sheng, Linda Parks, Mark A. Clements, Jerome S. Fischer, David Kerr, Michael S. Greenfield, Reid Offringa |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2019 |
| Předmět: |
Blood Glucose
Data Analysis medicine.medical_specialty Health Personnel Endocrinology Diabetes and Metabolism education Biomedical Engineering Datasets as Topic Bioengineering Glycemic Control Diabetes mellitus Internal Medicine Humans Medicine Clinical care Intensive care medicine Monitoring Physiologic Health professionals business.industry Continuous glucose monitoring Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring Health Educators Professional Practice Original Articles medicine.disease Hypoglycemia United States Glucose management Multiple data Diabetes Mellitus Type 1 Endocrinologists Diabetes Mellitus Type 2 business Delivery of Health Care |
| Zdroj: | J Diabetes Sci Technol |
| ISSN: | 1932-2968 |
| DOI: | 10.1177/1932296819873641 |
| Popis: | Background: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) offers multiple data features that can be leveraged to assess glucose management. However, how diabetes healthcare professionals (HCPs) actually assess CGM data and the extent to which they agree in assessing glycemic management are not well understood. Methods: We asked HCPs to assess ten de-identified CGM datasets (each spanning seven days) and rank order each day by relative glycemic management (from “best” to “worst”). We also asked HCPs to endorse features of CGM data that were important in making such assessments. Results: In the study, 57 HCPs (29 endocrinologists; 28 diabetes educators) participated. Hypoglycemia and glycemic variance were endorsed by nearly all HCPs to be important (91% and 88%, respectively). Time in range and daily lows and highs were endorsed more frequently by educators (all Ps < .05). On average, HCPs endorsed 3.7 of eight data features. Overall, HCPs demonstrated agreement in ranking days by relative glycemic control (Kendall’s W = .52, P < .001). Rankings were similar between endocrinologists and educators ( R2 = .90, Cohen’s kappa = .95, mean absolute error = .4 [all Ps < .05]; Mann-Whitney U = 41, P = .53). Conclusions: Consensus in the endorsement of certain data features and agreement in assessing glycemic management were observed. While some practice-specific differences in feature endorsement were found, no differences between educators and endocrinologists were observed in assessing glycemic management. Overall, HCPs tended to consider CGM data holistically, in alignment with published recommendations, and made converging assessments regardless of practice. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|