English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background:   The accuracy of flash glucose monitoring (FGM, FreeStyle Libre Pro [FSL-Pro]) remains unclear in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) undergoing hemodialysis.Methods:   We assessed 13 patients with T2DM undergoing hemodialysis. They simultaneously underwent FGM, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM, iPro2), and self-monitoring blood glucose (SMBG).Results:   Parkes error grid analysis against SMBG showed that 49.0% and 51.0% of interstitial fluid glucose (ISFG) levels measured using FGM and 93.3% and 6.7% of those measured using CGM fell into zones A and B, respectively. Mean absolute relative difference (MARD) against SMBG for FGM was significantly higher than that for CGM (19.5% ± 13.2% vs 8.1% ± 7.6%, P  180 mg/dL), the MARDs for hypoglycemia (31.9% ± 25.0%) and euglycemia (22.8% ± 14.6%) were significantly higher than MARD for hyperglycemia (13.0% ± 8.5%) ( P &lt; .0001 in both).Conclusions:   Flash glucose monitoring may be clinically acceptable. Average ISFG levels were lower with FGM than with CGM, and MARDs were higher for hypoglycemia and euglycemia in patients with T2DM undergoing hemodialysis.

journal of diabetes science and technology

Comparison of Interstitial Fluid Glucose Levels Obtained by Continuous Glucose Monitoring and Flash Glucose Monitoring in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Undergoing Hemodialysis