Key result
Continuous glucose monitoring exposes key discrepancies and potential pitfalls in venous HbA1c measurements.
Case Report
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Clinicians should be vigilant regarding discrepancies between CGM-estimated HbA1c and venous HbA1c measurements.
This case report highlights the importance of recognizing potential pitfalls in HbA1c measurement errors and being vigilant in terms of discrepancies between HbA1c estimated from continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and venous HbA1c measurements. The latter is especially relevant for physicians managing diabetes, as by 2025, 4,400 adults with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes are expected to start using CGM devices, many of whom will be monitored in primary care settings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bengtsen et al. (2025) conducted a case report in Insulin-treated type 2 diabetes. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) vs. Venous HbA1c measurements was evaluated. This case report highlights potential pitfalls in HbA1c measurement errors and discrepancies between continuous glucose monitoring estimates and venous HbA1c measurements in diabetes management.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: