Strengths and limitations
T1D, fits, diabetes
DIABETES
To our knowledge, this is the only trial to date of isCGM 2.0 in children, and it is important to validate diabetes technology although it is an ever-changing and emerging field.The study deliberately targeted those with elevated HbA1c levels who (for whatever reason: cost, social support, or other) have not been on isCGM. Comparatively, they are not the “first movers” in technology, or children/families that are able to exhibit high levels of diabetes management in combination with the challenges of broader socioeconomic deprivation.Our age range is both a strength and weakness; from our data, children in this age group are spanning development ages, and very reliant on family structure and support (unlike the studies in adults with T1D). Compared with previous studies on first-generation Libre, we were able to also have the TIR metrics to strengthen this study. LibreView software unfortunately did not provide data on alarm settings and use, and limiting any insights into participant behavior and potential benefits on sensor use or alarms.A weakness is the ever-changing nature of technological improvement in T1D, and we are aware that at present Libre 2.0 is not the latest version now available, however, much of the world is still using isCGM 2.0, and some locations still 1.0 or are reliant on finger-stick glucose testing. So, this study still has considerable value, especially as the first study of its kind in children, with only one in adults, and also that there are so few worldwide on any form of isCGM. Understanding the evolution of technology and where each type is placed or fits in our management “arsenal” is vital.