6.0.0.0 Ref­er­ences

1. Lasalvia P, Bara­hona-‍Cor­rea JE, Romero-‍Alvernia DM, et al. Pen de­vices for in­sulin self-‍ad­min­is­tra­tion com­pared with nee­dle and vial: sys­tematic re­view of the lit­er­a­ture and meta-‍anal­y­sis. J Di­a­betes Sci Tech­nol 2016;10: 959–966
2. Hanas R, de Beau­fort C, Hoey H, An­der­son B. In­sulin de­liv­ery by in­jec­tion in chil­dren and ado­les­cents with di­a­betes. Pe­di­atr Di­a­betes 2011;12:518–526
3. Pfu¨tzner A, Schip­per C, Niemey­er M, et al. Com­par­i­son of pa­tient pref­er­ence for two in­sulin in­jec­tion pen de­vices in re­la­tion to pa­tient dex­ter­i­ty skills. J Di­a­betes Sci Tech­nol 2012;6: 910–916
4. Williams AS, Schnar­ren­berg­er PA. A com­par­i­son of dos­ing ac­cu­ra­cy: vi­su­ally im­paired and sight­ed peo­ple using in­sulin pens. J Di­a­betes Sci Tech­nol 2010;4:514–521
5. Rein­auer KM, Joksch G, Renn W, Egg­stein M. In­sulin pens in el­der­ly di­a­bet­ic pa­tients. Di­a­betes Care 1990;13:1136–1137
6. Thomas DR, Fis­ch­er RG, Nicholas WC, Beghe C, Hat­ten KW, Thomas JN. Dis­pos­able in­sulin sy­ringe reuse and asep­tic prac­tices in di­a­bet­ic pa­tients. J Gen In­tern Med 1989;4:97– 100
7. Win­ter A, Lint­ner M, Kneze­vich E. V-Go in­sulin de­liv­ery sys­tem ver­sus mul­ti­ple daily in­sulin in­jec­tions for pa­tients with uncon­trolled type 2 di­a­betes mel­li­tus. J Di­a­betes Sci Tech­nol 2015; 9:1111–1116
8. Yeh H-C, Brown TT, Maruthur N, et al. Com­par­a­tive ef­fec­tive­ness and safe­ty of meth­ods of in­sulin de­liv­ery and glu­cose mon­i­tor­ing for di­a­betes mel­li­tus: a sys­tematic re­view and meta-‍anal­y­sis. Ann In­tern Med 2012;157: 336–347
9. Pick­up JC. The ev­i­dence base for di­a­betes tech­nol­o­gy: ap­pro­pri­ate and inap­pro­pri­ate meta-‍anal­y­sis. J Di­a­betes Sci Tech­nol 2013;7: 1567–1574
10. Black­man SM, Raghi­naru D, Adi S, et al. In­sulin pump use in young chil­dren in the T1D Ex­change clin­ic reg­istry is as­so­ci­at­ed with lower hemoglobin A1c lev­els than in­jec­tion ther­a­py. Pe­di­atr Di­a­betes 2014;15:564–572
11. Lin MH, Con­nor CG, Ruedy KJ, et al.; Pe­di­atric Di­a­betes Con­sor­tium. Race, so­cioe­co­nom­ic sta­tus, and treat­ment cen­ter are as­so­ci­at­ed with in­sulin pump ther­a­py in youth in the first year fol­low­ing di­ag­no­sis of type 1 di­a­betes. Di­a­betes Tech­nol Ther 2013;15:929–934
12. Willi SM, Miller KM, DiMeglio LA, et al.; T1D Ex­change Clin­ic Net­work. Racial-‍eth­nic dis­par­i­ties in man­agement and out­comes among chil­dren with type 1 di­a­betes. Pe­di­atrics 2015; 135:424–434
13. Re­don­do MJ, Lib­man I, Cheng P, et al.; Pe­di­atric Di­a­betes Con­sor­tium. Racial/‍ethnic mi­nor­i­ty youth with re­cent-‍onset type 1 di­a­betes have poor prog­nos­tic fac­tors. Di­a­betes Care 2018;41:1017–1024
14. Ram­chan­dani N, Ten S, An­halt H, et al. In­sulin pump ther­a­py from the time of di­ag­no­sis of type 1 di­a­betes. Di­a­betes Tech­nol Ther 2006;8:663–670
15. Berghaeuser MA, Kapellen T, Hei­dt­mann B, Haber­land H, Klink­ert C, Holl RW; DPV-‍Sci­ence-‍Ini­tia­tive and the Ger­man work­ing group for in­sulin pump treat­ment in pae­di­atric pa­tients. Con­tin­u­ous sub­cu­ta­neous in­sulin in­fu­sion in tod­dlers start­ing at di­ag­no­sis of type 1 di­a­betes mel­li­tus. A multicen­ter anal­y­sis of 104 pa­tients from 63 cen­tres in Ger­many and Aus­tria. Pe­di­atr Di­a­betes 2008;9:590–595
16. Pe­ters AL, Ah­mann AJ, Bat­telino T, et al. Di­a­betes tech­nol­o­gydcon­tin­u­ous sub­cu­ta­neous in­sulin in­fu­sion ther­a­py and con­tin­u­ous glu­cose mon­i­tor­ing in adults: an En­docrine So­ci­ety clin­i­cal prac­tice guide­line. J Clin En­docrinol Metab 2016;101:3922–3937
17. Wheel­er BJ, Heels K, Don­aghue KC, Reith DM, Am­bler GR. In­sulin pump-‍as­so­ci­at­ed ad­verse eventsinchil­drenand ado­les­centsda prospec­tive study. Di­a­betes Tech­nol Ther 2014;16:558–562
18. Ko­r­donouri O, Lauter­born R, Deiss D. Lipo­hy­per­tro­phy in young pa­tients with type 1 di­a­betes. Di­a­betes Care 2002;25:634
19. Ko­r­donouri O, Bi­ester T, Schnell K, et al. Lipoa­t­ro­phy in chil­dren with type 1 di­a­betes: an in­creas­ing in­ci­dence? J Di­a­betes Sci Tech­nol 2015;9:206–208
20. Guinn TS, Bai­ley GJ, Meck­len­burg RS. Fac­tors re­lat­ed to dis­con­tin­u­a­tion of con­tin­u­ous sub­cu­ta­neous in­sulin-‍in­fu­sion ther­a­py. Di­a­betes Care 1988;11:46–51
21. Wong JC, Boyle C, DiMeglio LA, et al.; T1D Ex­change Clin­ic Net­work. Eval­u­a­tion of pump dis­con­tin­u­a­tion and as­so­ci­at­ed fac­tors in the T1D Ex­change clin­ic reg­istry. J Di­a­betes Sci Tech­nol 2017;11:224–232
22. Wong JC, Dolan LM, Yang TT, Hood KK. In­sulin pump use and glycemic con­trol in ado­les­cents with type 1 di­a­betes: pre­dic­tors of change in method of in­sulin de­liv­ery across two years. Pe­di­atr Di­a­betes 2015;16:592–599
23. Plot­nick LP, Clark LM, Bran­cati FL, Er­linger T. Safe­ty and ef­fec­tive­ness of in­sulin pump ther­a­py in chil­dren and ado­les­cents with type 1 di­a­betes. Di­a­betes Care 2003;26:1142–1146
24. Re­don­do MJ, Con­nor CG, Ruedy KJ, et al.; Pe­di­atric Di­a­betes Con­sor­tium. Pe­di­atric Di­a­betes Con­sor­tium Type 1 Di­a­betes New Onset (NeOn) Study: fac­tors as­so­ci­at­ed with HbA1c lev­els one year after di­ag­no­sis. Pe­di­atr Di­a­betes 2014;15:294–302
25. Doyle EA, Weinz­imer SA, Stef­fen AT, Ahern JAH, Vin­cent M, Tam­bor­lane WVA. A ran­dom­ized, prospec­tive trial com­par­ing the efficacy of con­tin­u­ous sub­cu­ta­neous in­sulin in­fu­sion with mul­ti­ple daily in­jec­tions using in­sulin glargine. Di­a­betes Care 2004;27:1554–1558
26. Alemzadeh R, Ellis JN, Holzum MK, Par­ton EA, Wyatt DT. Beneficial ef­fects of con­tin­u­ous sub­cu­ta­neous in­sulin in­fu­sion and flex­i­ble mul­ti­ple daily in­sulin reg­i­men using in­sulin glargine in type 1 di­a­betes. Pe­di­atrics 2004;114:e91–e95
27. Sherr JL, Her­mann JM, Camp­bell F, et al.; T1D Ex­change Clin­ic Net­work, the DPV Ini­tia­tive, and the Na­tion­al Pae­di­atric Di­a­betes Audit and the Royal Col­lege of Pae­di­atrics and Child Health reg­istries. Use of in­sulin pump ther­a­py in chil­dren and ado­les­cents with type 1 di­a­betes and its im­pact on metabol­ic con­trol: com­par­i­son of re­sults from three large, transat­lantic pae­di­atric reg­istries. Di­a­betolo­gia 2016;59:87–91
28. Jeitler K, Hor­vath K, Berghold A, et al. Con­tin­u­ous sub­cu­ta­neous in­sulin in­fu­sion ver­sus mul­ti­ple daily in­sulin in­jec­tions in pa­tients with di­a­betes mel­li­tus: sys­tematic re­view and metaanal­y­sis. Di­a­betolo­gia 2008;51:941–951
29. Karges B, Schwandt A, Hei­dt­mann B, et al. As­so­ci­a­tion of in­sulin pump ther­a­py vs in­sulin in­jec­tion ther­a­py with se­vere hy­po­glycemia, ke­toaci­do­sis, and glycemic con­trol among chil­dren, ado­les­cents, and young adults with type 1 di­a­betes. JAMA 2017;318:1358–1366
30. The DCCT Re­search Group. Epi­demi­ol­o­gy of se­vere hy­po­glycemia in the Di­a­betes Con­trol and Com­pli­ca­tions Trial. Am J Med 1991;90:450–459
31. Haynes A, Her­mann JM, Miller KM, et al. Se­vere hy­po­glycemia rates are not as­so­ci­at­ed with HbA1c: a cross-sec­tional anal­y­sis of 3 contem­po­rary pe­di­atric di­a­betes reg­istry databas­es. Pe­di­atr Di­a­betes 2017;18:643–650
32. Pick­up JC, Sut­ton AJ. Se­vere hy­po­gly­caemia and gly­caemic con­trol in type 1 di­a­betes: metaanal­y­sis of mul­ti­ple daily in­sulin in­jec­tions com­pared with con­tin­u­ous sub­cu­ta­neous in­sulin in­fu­sion. Di­a­bet Med 2008; 25:765–774
33. Birke­baek NH, Drivvoll AK, Aake­son K, et al. In­ci­dence of se­vere hy­po­glycemia in chil­dren with type 1 di­a­betes in the Nordic coun­tries in the pe­ri­od 2008–2012: as­so­ci­a­tion with hemoglobin A1c and treat­ment modal­i­ty. BMJ Open Di­a­betes Res Care 2017;5:e000377
34. Maahs DM, Her­mann JM, Hol­man N, et al.; Na­tion­al Pae­di­atric Di­a­betes Audit and the Royal Col­lege of Pae­di­atrics and Child Health, the DPV Ini­tia­tive, and the T1D Ex­change Clin­ic Net­work. Rates of di­a­bet­ic ke­toaci­do­sis: in­ter­na­tion­al com­par­i­son with 49,859 pe­di­atric pa­tients with type 1 di­a­betes from Eng­land, Wales, the U.S., Aus­tria, and Ger­many. Di­a­betes Care 2015; 38:1876–1882
35. Zabeen B, Craig ME, Virk SA, et al. In­sulin pump ther­a­py is as­so­ci­at­ed with lower rates of retinopa­thy and pe­riph­er­al nerve abnor­mality. PLoS One 2016;11:e0153033
36. Wein­trob N, Ben­za­quen H, Galatzer A, et al. Com­par­i­son of con­tin­u­ous sub­cu­ta­neous in­sulin in­fu­sion and mul­ti­ple daily in­jec­tion reg­i­mens in chil­dren with type 1 di­a­betes: a ran­dom­ized open crossover trial. Pe­di­atrics 2003;112:559–564
37. Opipari-‍Arrigan L, Fred­er­icks EM, Burkhart N, Dale L, Hodge M, Fos­ter C. Con­tin­u­ous sub­cu­ta­neous in­sulin in­fu­sion benefits qual­i­ty of life in preschool-‍age chil­dren with type 1 di­a­betes mel­li­tus. Pe­di­atr Di­a­betes 2007;8:377– 383
38. Sund­berg F, Barnard K, Cato A, et al. ISPAD Guide­lines. Man­ag­ing di­a­betes in preschool chil­dren. Pe­di­atr Di­a­betes 2017;18:499–517
39. Com­mis­sari­at PV, Boyle CT, Miller KM, et al. In­sulin pump use in young chil­dren with type 1 di­a­betes: so­ciode­mo­graph­ic fac­tors and parent-re­ported bar­ri­ers. Di­a­betes Tech­nol Ther 2017; 19:363–369
40. Nathan DM, Genuth S, Lachin J, et al.; Di­a­betes Con­trol and Com­pli­ca­tions Trial Re­search Group. The ef­fect of in­ten­sive treat­ment of di­a­betes on the de­vel­op­ment and pro­gres­sion of long-‍term com­pli­ca­tions in in­sulin-‍de­pen­dent di­a­betes mel­li­tus. N Engl J Med 1993;329:977– 986
41. Tam­bor­lane WV, Beck RW, Bode BW, et al.; Ju­ve­nile Di­a­betes Re­search Foun­da­tion Con­tin­u­ous Glu­cose Mon­i­toring Study Group. Con­tin­u­ous glu­cose mon­i­tor­ing and in­ten­sive treat­ment of type 1 di­a­betes. N Engl J Med 2008;359:1464–1476
42. Miller KM, Beck RW, Bergen­stal RM, et al.; T1D Ex­change Clin­ic Net­work. Ev­i­dence of a strong as­so­ci­a­tion be­tween fre­quen­cy of selfmon­i­tor­ing of blood glu­cose and hemoglobin A1c lev­els in T1D Ex­change clin­ic reg­istry par­tic­i­pants. Di­a­betes Care 2013;36:2009–2014
43. Grant RW, Huang ES, Wexler DJ, et al. Pa­tients who self-‍mon­i­tor blood glu­cose and their un­used test­ing re­sults. Am J Manag Care 2015;21:e119–e129
44. Gel­lad WF, Zhao X, Thor­pe CT, Mor MK, Good CB, Fine MJ. Dual use of De­part­ment of Vet­er­ans Af­fairs and Medi­care benefits and use of test strips in vet­er­ans with type 2 di­a­betes mel­li­tus. JAMA In­tern Med 2015;175:26–34
45. En­docrine So­ci­ety and Choos­ing Wise­ly. Five things physi­cians and pa­tients should ques­tion [In­ternet]. Avail­able from http://www.choos­ingwisely.org/societies/endocrine-‍society/. Ac­cessed 12 Novem­ber 2018
46. Ziegler R, Hei­dt­mann B, Hil­gard D, Hofer S, Rosen­bauer J, Holl R; DPV-Wiss-Ini­tia­tive. Fre­quen­cy of SMBG cor­re­lates with HbA1c and acute com­pli­ca­tions in chil­dren and ado­les­cents with type 1 di­a­betes. Pe­di­atr Di­a­betes 2011;12: 11–17
47. Rosen­stock J, Davies M, Home PD, Larsen J, Koe­nen C, Sch­ern­thaner G. A ran­domised, 52-week, treat-to-tar­get trial com­par­ing in­sulin de­temir with in­sulin glargine when ad­min­is­tered as addon to glu­cose-‍low­er­ing drugs in in­sulin-‍naive peo­ple with type 2 di­a­betes. Di­a­betolo­gia 2008; 51:408–416
48. Gar­ber AJ. Treat-to-tar­get tri­als: uses, in­ter­pre­ta­tion and re­view of con­cepts. Di­a­betes Obes Metab 2014;16:193–205
49. Farmer A, Wade A, Goy­der E, et al. Im­pact of self mon­i­tor­ing of blood glu­cose in the man­agement of pa­tients with non-‍in­sulin treat­ed di­a­betes: open par­al­lel group ran­domised trial. BMJ 2007;335:132
50. O’Kane MJ, Bunting B, Copeland M, Coates VE; ESMON study group. Efficacy of self mon­i­tor­ing of blood glu­cose in pa­tients with newly di­ag­nosed type 2 di­a­betes (ESMON study): ran­domised con­trolled trial. BMJ 2008;336: 1174–1177
51. Simon J, Gray A, Clarke P, Wade A, Neil A, Farmer A; Di­a­betes Gly­caemic Ed­u­ca­tion and Mon­i­toring Trial Group. Cost ef­fec­tive­ness of self mon­i­tor­ing of blood glu­cose in pa­tients with non-‍in­sulin treat­ed type 2 di­a­betes: eco­nom­ic eval­u­a­tion of data from the DiGEM trial. BMJ 2008;336:1177–1180
52. Young LA, Buse JB, Weaver MA, et al.; Mon­i­tor Trial Group. Glu­cose self-‍mon­i­tor­ing in non-‍in­sulin-‍treat­ed pa­tients with type 2 di­a­betes in pri­ma­ry care set­tings: a ran­dom­ized trial. JAMA In­tern Med 2017;177:920–929
53. Polon­sky WH, Fish­er L, Schik­man CH, et al. Struc­tured self-‍mon­i­tor­ing of blood glu­cose significant­ly re­duces A1C lev­els in poor­ly con­trolled, nonin­sulin-‍treat­ed type 2 di­a­betes: re­sults from the Struc­tured Test­ing Pro­gram study. Di­a­betes Care 2011;34:262–267
54. Ma­lan­da UL, Welschen LMC, Ripha­gen II, Dekker JM, Ni­jpels G, Bot SDM. Self-‍mon­i­tor­ing of blood glu­cose in pa­tients with type 2 di­a­betes mel­li­tus who are not using in­sulin. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;1:CD005060
55. Wil­lett LR. ACP Jour­nal Club. Meta-‍anal­y­sis: self-‍mon­i­tor­ing in non-‍in­sulin-‍treat­ed type 2 di­a­betes im­proved HbA1c by 0.25%. Ann In­tern Med 2012;156:JC6–JC12
56. Man­nuc­ci E, An­tenore A, Giorgino F, Scav­i­ni M. Ef­fects of struc­tured ver­sus unstruc­tured self-‍mon­i­tor­ing of blood glu­cose on glu­cose con­trol in pa­tients with non-‍in­sulin-‍treat­ed type 2 di­a­betes: a meta-‍anal­y­sis of ran­dom­ized con­trolled tri­als. J Di­a­betes Sci Tech­nol 2018;12: 183–189
57. Klonoff DC, Parkes JL, Ko­vatchev BP, et al. In­ves­ti­ga­tion of the ac­cu­ra­cy of 18 mar­ket­ed blood glu­cose mon­i­tors. Di­a­betes Care 2018;41: 1681–1688
58. Gins­berg BH. Fac­tors af­fect­ing blood glu­cose mon­i­tor­ing: sources of er­rors in mea­surement. J Di­a­betes Sci Tech­nol 2009;3:903–913
59. Alep­po G, Ruedy KJ, Rid­dlesworth TD, et al.; REPLACE-‍BG Study Group. REPLACE-‍BG: a ran­dom­ized trial com­par­ing con­tin­u­ous glu­cose mon­i­tor­ing with and with­out rou­tine blood glu­cose mon­i­tor­ing in adults with well-‍con­trolled type 1 di­a­betes. Di­a­betes Care 2017;40:538–545
60. U.S. Food and Drug Ad­min­is­tra­tion. FDA news re­lease: FDA ex­pands in­di­ca­tion for con­tin­u­ous glu­cose mon­i­tor­ing sys­tem, first to re­place finger­stick test­ing for di­a­betes treat­ment de­ci­sions [In­ternet], 2016. Avail­able from https://www.fda.gov/‍newsevents/‍newsroom/ pressannouncements/‍ucm534056.htm. Ac­cessed 14 Septem­ber 2017
61. U.S. Food and Drug Ad­min­is­tra­tion. FDA news re­lease: FDA ap­proves first con­tin­u­ous glu­cose mon­i­tor­ing sys­tem for adults not re­quir­ing blood sam­ple cal­i­bra­tion [In­ternet], 2017. Avail­able from https://www.fda.gov/ NewsEvents/‍Newsroom/‍PressAnnouncements/‍ ucm577890.htm. Ac­cessed 2 Oc­to­ber 2017
62. Danne T, Nimri R, Bat­telino T, et al. In­ter­na­tion­al con­sen­sus on use of con­tin­u­ous glu­cose mon­i­tor­ing. Di­a­betes Care 2017;40: 1631–1640
63. Bergen­stal RM, Beck RW, Close KL, et al. Glu­cose man­agement in­di­ca­tor (GMI): a new term for es­ti­mat­ing A1C from con­tin­u­ous glu­cose mon­i­tor­ing. Di­a­betes Care 2018;41:2275– 2280
64. Bat­telino T, Con­get I, Olsen B, et al.; SWITCH Study Group. The use and efficacy of con­tin­u­ous glu­cose mon­i­tor­ing in type 1 di­a­betes treat­ed with in­sulin pump ther­a­py: a ran­domised con­trolled trial. Di­a­betolo­gia 2012;55:3155–3162
65. Deiss D, Bolin­der J, Riv­e­line J-P, et al. Im­proved glycemic con­trol in poor­ly con­trolled pa­tients with type 1 di­a­betes using real-‍time con­tin­u­ous glu­cose mon­i­tor­ing. Di­a­betes Care 2006;29:2730–2732
66. O’Con­nell MA, Do­nath S, O’Neal DN, et al. Gly­caemic im­pact of pa­tient-‍led use of sen­sor-guided pump ther­a­py in type 1 di­a­betes: a ran­domised con­trolled trial. Di­a­betolo­gia 2009;52: 1250–1257
67. Mauras N, Beck R, Xing D, et al.; Di­a­betes Re­search in Chil­dren Net­work (Di­rec­Net) Study Group. A ran­dom­ized clin­i­cal trial to as­sess the efficacy and safe­ty of real-‍time con­tin­u­ous glu­cose mon­i­tor­ing in the man­agement of type 1 di­a­betes in young chil­dren aged 4 to <10 years. Di­a­betes Care 2012;35:204–210
68. Jeha GS, Kar­avi­ti LP, An­der­son B, et al. Con­tin­u­ous glu­cose mon­i­tor­ing and the re­al­i­ty of metabol­ic con­trol in preschool chil­dren with type 1 di­a­betes. Di­a­betes Care 2004;27:2881– 2886
69. Gan­drud LM, Xing D, Koll­man C, et al. The Medtron­ic Min­imed Gold con­tin­u­ous glu­cose mon­i­tor­ing sys­tem: an ef­fective means to dis­cov­er hy­poand hy­per­glycemia in chil­dren under 7 years of age. Di­a­betes Tech­nol Ther 2007;9: 307–316
70. Tsa­likian E, Fox L, Weinz­imer S, et al.; Di­a­betes Re­search in Chil­dren Net­work Study Group. Fea­si­bil­i­ty of pro­longed con­tin­u­ous glu­cose mon­i­tor­ing in tod­dlers with type 1 di­a­betes. Pe­di­atr Di­a­betes 2012;13:301–307
71. Wong JC, Fos­ter NC, Maahs DM, et al.; T1D Ex­change Clin­ic Net­work. Real-‍time con­tin­u­ous glu­cose mon­i­tor­ing among par­tic­i­pants in the T1D Ex­change clin­ic reg­istry. Di­a­betes Care 2014; 37:2702–2709
72. Fos­ter NC, Miller KM, Tam­bor­lane WV, Bergen­stal RM, Beck RW; T1D Ex­change Clin­ic Net­work. Con­tin­u­ous glu­cose mon­i­tor­ing in pa­tients with type 1 di­a­betes using in­sulin in­jec­tions. Di­a­betes Care 2016;39:e81–e82
73. Beck RW, Buck­ing­ham B, Miller K, et al.; Ju­ve­nile Di­a­betes Re­search Foun­da­tion Con­tin­u­ous Glu­cose Mon­i­toring Study Group. Fac­tors pre­dic­tive of use and of benefit from con­tin­u­ous glu­cose mon­i­tor­ing in type 1 di­a­betes. Di­a­betes Care 2009;32:1947–1953
74. Ju­ve­nile Di­a­betes Re­search Foun­da­tion Con­tin­u­ous Glu­cose Mon­i­toring Study Group. Ef­fec­tive­ness of con­tin­u­ous glu­cose mon­i­tor­ing in a clin­i­cal care en­vi­ron­ment: ev­i­dence from the Ju­ve­nile Di­a­betes Re­search Foun­da­tion Con­tin­u­ous Glu­cose Mon­i­toring (JDRF-‍CGM) trial. Di­a­betes Care 2010;33:17–22
75. Chase HP, Beck RW, Xing D, et al. Con­tin­u­ous glu­cosemon­i­tor­ingin youth withtype 1 di­a­betes: 12-‍month fol­low-‍up of the Ju­ve­nile Di­a­betes Re­search Foun­da­tion con­tin­u­ous glu­cose mon­i­tor­ing ran­dom­ized trial. Di­a­betes Tech­nol Ther 2010;12:507–515
76. Pick­up JC, Free­man SC, Sut­ton AJ. Gly­caemic con­trol in type 1 di­a­betes dur­ing real time con­tin­u­ous glu­cose mon­i­tor­ing com­pared with self mon­i­tor­ing of blood glu­cose: meta-‍anal­y­sis of ran­domised con­trolled tri­als using in­di­vid­u­al pa­tient data. BMJ 2011;343:d3805
77. Riv­e­line J-P, Schae­pe­lynck P, Chail­lous L, et al.; EVA­DI­AC Sen­sor Study Group. As­sess­ment of pa­tient-‍led or physi­cian-‍driv­en con­tin­u­ous glu­cose mon­i­tor­ing in pa­tients with poor­ly con­trolled type 1 di­a­betes using basal-‍bolus in­sulin reg­i­mens: a 1-year multicen­ter study. Di­a­betes Care 2012;35:965–971
78. Bat­telino T, Phillip M, Brati­na N, Nimri R, Os­kars­son P, Bolin­der J. Ef­fect of con­tin­u­ous glu­cose mon­i­tor­ing on hy­po­glycemia in type 1 di­a­betes. Di­a­betes Care 2011;34:795–800
79. Beck RW, Hirsch IB, Laf­fel L, et al.; Ju­ve­nile Di­a­betes Re­search Foun­da­tion Con­tin­u­ous Glu­cose Mon­i­toring Study Group. The ef­fect of con­tin­u­ous glu­cose mon­i­tor­ing in well-‍con­trolled type 1 di­a­betes. Di­a­betes Care 2009;32:1378– 1383
80. Beck RW, Rid­dlesworth T, Ruedy K, et al.; DI­A­MOND Study Group. Ef­fect of con­tin­u­ous glu­cose mon­i­tor­ing on glycemic con­trol in adults with type 1 di­a­betes using in­sulin in­jec­tions: the DI­A­MOND ran­dom­ized clin­i­cal trial. JAMA 2017; 317:371–378
81. Rid­dlesworth T, Price D, Cohen N, Beck RW. Hy­po­glycemic event fre­quen­cy and the ef­fect of con­tin­u­ous glu­cose mon­i­tor­ing in adults with type 1 di­a­betes using mul­ti­ple daily in­sulin in­jec­tions. Di­a­betes Ther 2017;8:947– 951
82. Lind M, Polon­sky W, Hirsch IB, et al. Con­tin­u­ous glu­cose mon­i­tor­ing vs con­ven­tion­al ther­a­py for glycemic con­trol in adults with type 1 di­a­betes treat­ed with mul­ti­ple daily in­sulin in­jec­tions: the GOLD ran­dom­ized clin­i­cal trial [pub­lished cor­rec­tion ap­pears in JAMA 2017; 317:1912]. JAMA 2017;317:379–387
83. Se­queira PA, Mon­toya L, Ru­elas V, et al. Con­tin­u­ous glu­cose mon­i­tor­ing pilot in low-‍in­come type 1 di­a­betes pa­tients. Di­a­betes Tech­nol Ther 2013;15:855–858
84. Tum­minia A, Crimi S, Sci­ac­ca L, et al. Efficacy of real-‍time con­tin­u­ous glu­cose mon­i­tor­ing on gly­caemic con­trol and glu­cose variabil­i­ty in type 1 di­a­bet­ic pa­tients treat­ed with ei­ther in­sulin pumps or mul­ti­ple in­sulin in­jec­tion ther­a­py: a ran­dom­ized con­trolled crossover trial. Di­a­betes Metab Res Rev 2015;31:61–68
85. Bolin­der J, An­tu­na R, Geelhoed-‍Duijvestijn P, Kro¨ger J, Weit­gasser R. Novel glu­cose-‍sensing tech­nol­o­gy and hy­po­gly­caemia in type 1 di­a­betes: a mul­ti­cen­tre, non-‍masked, ran­domised con­trolled trial. Lancet 2016;388:2254–2263
86. Her­manns N, Schu­mann B, Kulz­er B, Haak T. The im­pact of con­tin­u­ous glu­cose mon­i­tor­ing on low in­ter­sti­tial glu­cose val­ues and low blood glu­cose val­ues as­sessed by point-‍of-‍care blood glu­cose me­ters: re­sults of a crossover trial. J Di­a­betes Sci Tech­nol 2014;8:516–522
87. van Beers CAJ, De­Vries JH, Klei­jer SJ, et al. Con­tin­u­ous glu­cose mon­i­tor­ing for pa­tients with type 1 di­a­betes and im­paired aware­ness of hy­po­gly­caemia (IN CON­TROL): a ran­domised, open-‍label, crossover trial. Lancet Di­a­betes En­docrinol 2016;4:893–902
88. Heine­mann L, Freck­mann G, Ehrmann D, et al. Real-‍time con­tin­u­ous glu­cose mon­i­tor­ing in adults with type 1 di­a­betes and im­paired hy­po­gly­caemia aware­ness or se­vere hy­po­gly­caemia treat­ed with mul­ti­ple daily in­sulin in­jec­tions (Hy­poDE): a mul­ti­cen­tre, ran­domised con­trolled trial. Lancet 2018;391:1367–1377
89. Garg S, Ziss­er H, Schwartz S, et al. Im­prove­ment in glycemic ex­cur­sions with a tran­scu­ta­neous, real-‍time con­tin­u­ous glu­cose sen­sor: a ran­dom­ized con­trolled trial. Di­a­betes Care 2006;29:44–50
90. New JP, Ajjan R, Pfeif­fer AFH, Freck­mann G. Con­tin­u­ous glu­cose mon­i­tor­ing in peo­ple with di­a­betes: the ran­dom­ized con­trolled Glu­cose Level Aware­ness in Di­a­betes Study (GLAD­IS). Di­a­bet Med 2015;32:609–617
91. Cooke D, Hurel SJ, Cas­bard A, et al. Ran­dom­ized con­trolled trial to as­sess the im­pact of con­tin­u­ous glu­cose mon­i­tor­ing on HbA1c in in­sulin-‍treat­ed di­a­betes (MITRE Study). Di­a­bet Med 2009;26:540–547
92. Beck RW, Rid­dlesworth TD, Ruedy K, et al.; DI­A­MOND Study Group. Con­tin­u­ous glu­cose mon­i­tor­ing ver­sus usual care in pa­tients with type 2 di­a­betes re­ceiv­ing mul­ti­ple daily in­sulin in­jec­tions: a ran­dom­ized trial. Ann In­tern Med 2017;167:365–374
93. Ehrhardt NM, Chel­lap­pa M, Walk­er MS, Fonda SJ, Viger­sky RA. The ef­fect of real-‍time con­tin­u­ous glu­cose mon­i­tor­ing on glycemic con­trol in pa­tients with type 2 di­a­betes mel­li­tus. J Di­a­betes Sci Tech­nol 2011;5:668–675
94. Haak T, Hanaire H, Ajjan R, Her­manns N, Riv­e­line J-P, Ray­man G. Flash glu­cose-‍sensing tech­nol­o­gy as a re­placement for blood glu­cose mon­i­tor­ing for the man­agement of in­sulin-‍treat­ed type 2 di­a­betes: a multicen­ter, open-‍label ran­dom­ized con­trolled trial. Di­a­betes Ther 2017;8:55–73
95. Yoo HJ, An HG, Park SY, et al. Use of a real time con­tin­u­ous glu­cose mon­i­tor­ing sys­tem as a mo­ti­va­tion­al de­vice for poor­ly con­trolled type 2 di­a­betes. Di­a­betes Res Clin Pract 2008;82:73–79 95a. For­len­za GP, Li Z, Buck­ing­ham BA, et al. Pre­dic­tive low-‍glu­cose sus­pend re­duces hy­po­glycemiain adults, ado­les­cents, andchil­drenwith type 1 di­a­betes in an at-‍home ran­dom­ized crossover study: re­sults of the PRO­LOG trial. Di­a­betes Care 2018;41:2155–2161
96. Feig DS, Dono­van LE, Cor­coy R, et al.; CON­CEPTT Col­lab­o­ra­tive Group. Con­tin­u­ous glu­cose mon­i­tor­ing in preg­nant women with type 1 di­a­betes (CON­CEPTT): a mul­ti­cen­tre in­ter­na­tion­al ran­domised con­trolled trial. Lancet 2017;390:2347–2359
97. Sech­er AL, Ringholm L, An­der­sen HU, Damm P, Math­iesen ER. The ef­fect of real-‍time con­tin­u­ous glu­cose mon­i­tor­ing in preg­nant women with di­a­betes: a ran­dom­ized con­trolled trial. Di­a­betes Care 2013;36:1877–1883
98. Wei Q, Sun Z, Yang Y, Yu H, Ding H, Wang S. Ef­fect of a CGMS and SMBG on ma­ter­nal and neona­tal out­comes in ges­ta­tion­al di­a­betes mel­li­tus: a ran­dom­ized con­trolled trial. Sci Rep 2016; 6:19920
99. O´ lafs­do´ttir AF, Attvall S, Sand­gren U, et al. A clin­i­cal trial of the ac­cu­ra­cy and treat­ment ex­pe­ri­ence of the flash glu­cose mon­i­tor FreeStyle Libre in adults with type 1 di­a­betes. Di­a­betes Tech­nol Ther 2017;19:164–172
100. Ji L, Guo X, Guo L, Ren Q, Yu N, Zhang J. A multicen­ter eval­u­a­tion of the per­for­mance and usabil­i­ty of a novel glu­cose mon­i­tor­ing sys­tem in Chi­nese adults with di­a­betes. J Di­a­betes Sci Tech­nol 2017;11:290–295
101. Bai­ley T, Bode BW, Chris­tiansen MP, Klaff LJ, Alva S. The per­for­mance and usabil­i­ty of a fac­to­ry-‍cal­i­brat­ed flash glu­cose mon­i­tor­ing sys­tem. Di­a­betes Tech­nol Ther 2015;17:787–794
102. Aber­er F, Ha­jnsek M, Rum­pler M, et al. Eval­u­a­tion of sub­cu­ta­neous glu­cose mon­i­tor­ing sys­tems under rou­tine en­vi­ron­mental con­di­tions in pa­tients with type 1 di­a­betes. Di­a­betes Obes Metab 2017;19:1051–1055
103. Fokkert MJ, van Dijk PR, Edens MA, et al. Per­for­mance of the FreeStyle Libre flash glu­cose mon­i­tor­ing sys­tem in pa­tients with type 1 and 2 di­a­betes mel­li­tus. BMJ Open Di­a­betes Res Care 2017;5:e000320
104. Bono­ra B, Maran A, Ci­cil­iot S, Avog­a­ro A, Fa­di­ni GP. Head-‍to-‍head com­par­i­son be­tween flash and con­tin­u­ous glu­cose mon­i­tor­ing sys­tems in outpa­tients with type 1 di­a­betes. J En­docrinol In­vest 2016;39:1391–1399
105. Boscari F, Galas­so S, Ac­cia­roli G, et al. Head-‍to-‍head com­par­i­son of the ac­cu­ra­cy of Ab­bott FreeStyle Libre and Dex­com G5 Mo­bile. Nutr Metab Car­dio­vasc Dis 2018;28:425–427
106. Scott EM, Bilous RW, Kautzky-‍Willer A. Ac­cu­ra­cy, user acceptabil­i­ty, and safe­ty eval­u­a­tion for the FreeStyle Libre flash glu­cose mon­i­tor­ing sys­tem when used by preg­nant women with di­a­betes. Di­a­betes Tech­nol Ther 2018;20: 180–188
107. Reddy M, Jugnee N, El Labou­di A, Spanudakis E, Anan­thara­ja S, Oliv­er N. A ran­dom­ized con­trolled pilot study of con­tin­u­ous glu­cose mon­i­tor­ing and flash glu­cose mon­i­tor­ing in peo­ple with type 1 di­a­betes and im­paired aware­ness of hy­po­gly­caemia. Di­a­bet Med 2018; 35:483–490
108. Szad­kows­ka A, Gawrec­ki A, Micha­lak A, Zozulin´ska-‍Zio´łkiewicz D, Fendler W, Młynars­ki W. Flash glu­cose mea­surements in chil­dren with type 1 di­a­betes in real-‍life set­tings: to trust or not to trust? Di­a­betes Tech­nol Ther 2018;20: 17–24
109. Massa GG, Gys I, Op ’t Eyndt A, et al. Eval­u­a­tion of the FreeStyle® Libre flash glu­cose mon­i­tor­ing sys­tem in chil­dren and ado­les­cents with type 1 di­a­betes. Horm Res Pae­di­a­tr 2018; 89:189–199
110. Edge J, Ac­eri­ni C, Camp­bell F, et al. An al­ter­na­tive sen­sor-‍based method for glu­cose mon­i­tor­ing in chil­dren and young peo­ple with di­a­betes. Arch Dis Child 2017;102:543–549
111. Ka­mann S, Aerts O, Heine­mann L. Fur­ther ev­i­dence of se­vere al­ler­gic con­tact der­mati­tis from isobornyl acry­late while using a con­tin­u­ous glu­cose mon­i­tor­ing sys­tem. J Di­a­betes Sci Tech­nol 2018;12:630–633
112. Aerts O, Her­man A, Bruze M, Goossens A, Mowitz M. FreeStyle Libre: con­tact ir­ri­ta­tion ver­sus con­tact al­ler­gy. Lancet 2017;390:1644
113. Her­man A, Aerts O, Baeck M, et al. Al­ler­gic con­tact der­mati­tis caused by isobornyl acry­late in Freestyle® Libre, a newly in­tro­duced glu­cose sen­sor. Con­tact Der­mat 2017;77:367–373
114. Nor­we­gian In­sti­tute of Pub­lic Health. FreeStyle Libre flash glu­cose self-‍mon­i­tor­ing sys­tem: a sin­gle-‍tech­nol­o­gy as­sess­ment [In­ternet], 2017. Avail­able from http://www.fhi.no/‍en/‍publ/‍ 2017/freestyle-libre-sys­temet-for-egenmaling-av-blodsukker-en-hurtigmetodevurder/. Ac­cessed 22 Oc­to­ber 2018
115. Palylyk-‍Col­well E, Ford C. Flash glu­cose mon­i­tor­ing sys­tem for di­a­betes. In CADTH Is­sues in Emerg­ing Health Tech­nolo­gies. Ot­tawa, ON, Cana­di­an Agen­cy for Drugs and Tech­nolo­gies in Health, 2016 [In­ternet]. Avail­able from http://ww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/‍books/‍NBK476439/. Ac­cessed 22 Oc­to­ber 2018
116. Lee­larath­na L, Wilmot EG. Flash for­ward: a re­view of flash glu­cose mon­i­tor­ing. Di­a­bet Med 2018;35:472–482
117. Sherr JL, Cen­giz E, Palerm CC, et al. Re­duced hy­po­glycemia and in­creased time in tar­get using closed-‍loop in­sulin de­liv­ery dur­ing nights with or with­out an­tecedent af­ter­noon ex­er­cise in type 1 di­a­betes. Di­a­betes Care 2013;36: 2909–2914
118. Tron­cone A, Bon­fan­ti R, Ia­fus­co D, et al. Eval­u­at­ing the ex­pe­ri­ence of chil­dren with type 1 di­a­betes and their par­ents tak­ing part in an artificial pan­creas clin­i­cal trial over mul­ti­ple days in a di­a­betes camp set­ting. Di­a­betes Care 2016;39:2158–2164
119. Barnard KD, Wysoc­ki T, Allen JM, et al. Clos­ing the loop overnight at home set­ting: psy­choso­cial im­pact for ado­les­cents with type 1 di­a­betes and their par­ents. BMJ Open Di­a­betes Res Care 2014;2:e000025
120. Barnard KD, Wysoc­ki T, Thabit H, et al.; An­gela Con­sor­tium. Psy­choso­cial as­pects of closed-‍ and open-‍loop in­sulin de­liv­ery: clos­ing the loop in adults with type 1 di­a­betes in the home set­ting. Di­a­bet Med 2015;32:601–608
121. Weissberg-‍Benchell J, Hessler D, Polon­sky WH, Fish­er L. Psy­choso­cial im­pact of the bion­ic pan­creas dur­ing sum­mer camp. J Di­a­betes Sci Tech­nol 2016;10:840–844
122. Bergen­stal RM, Garg S, Weinz­imer SA, et al. Safe­ty of a hy­brid closed-‍loop in­sulin de­liv­ery sys­tem in pa­tients with type 1 di­a­betes. JAMA 2016;316:1407–1408
123. Garg SK, Weinz­imer SA, Tam­bor­lane WV, et al. Glu­cose out­comes with the in-‍home use of a hy­brid closed-‍loop in­sulin de­liv­ery sys­tem in ado­les­cents and adults with type 1 di­a­betes. Di­a­betes Tech­nol Ther 2017;19:155–163
124. Tauschmann M, Thabit H, Bally L, et al. Closed-‍loop in­sulin de­liv­ery in subop­ti­mally con­trolled type 1 di­a­betes: a mul­ti­cen­tre, 12-week ran­domised trial. Lancet 2018;392:1321–1329
125. U.S. Food and Drug Ad­min­stra­tion. Self-‍mon­i­tor­ing blood glu­cose test sys­tems for over-‍the-‍counter use: guid­ance for in­dus­try and Food and Drug Ad­min­is­tra­tion staff [In­ternet]. Avail­able from https://www.fda.gov/‍downloads/‍ Med­i­calDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/ GuidanceDocuments/‍UCM380327.pdf. Ac­cessed 14 Novem­ber 2018
126. U.S. Food and Drug Ad­min­is­tra­tion. Blood glu­cose mon­i­tor­ing test sys­tems for pre­scrip­tion point-‍of-‍dare use: guid­ance for in­dus­try and Food and Drug Ad­min­is­tra­tion staff [In­ternet]. Avail­able from https://www.fda.gov/‍downloads/‍ Med­i­calDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/ GuidanceDocuments/‍UCM380325.pdf. Ac­cessed 14 Novem­ber 2018
127. In­ter­na­tion­al Stan­dards Or­ga­ni­za­tion. ISO 15197:2013 [In­ternet]. Avail­able from https:// www.iso.org/standard/54976.html Ac­cessed 14 Novem­ber 2018
128. Parkes JL, Slatin SL, Pardo S, Gins­berg BH. A new con­sen­sus error grid to eval­u­ate the clin­i­cal significance of inac­cu­racies in the mea­surement of blood glu­cose. Di­a­betes Care 2000;23: 1143–1148