Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.
A Comprehensive Review of the Evolving Landscape of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Metrics
ABSTRACT
Background:
Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has transformed diabetes management and research by providing high-frequency data that overcomes the limitations of HbA1c, enabling more precise clinical treatment targets and responsive trial endpoints. The richness and complexity of high-resolution time-series CGM data have spurred the development of numerous metrics for both clinical care and research applications. However, this proliferation has created significant challenges in metric selection, interpretation and standardization.
Objective:
The objective of this systematic review is to map the current landscape of CGM metrics and address ongoing challenges in metric selection, clinical and research interpretation, and standardization.
Methods:
We systematically searched PubMed and Google Scholar for literature published between 2001 and 2025 on the calculation, application, and interpretation of standard and emerging CGM metrics. We extracted data on metric definitions, calculation methods, and clinical and research utility.
Results:
The review identifies a fundamental divide in the metric landscape. Standardized and clinical metrics prioritize simplicity and actionability, facilitating rapid decision-making in clinical settings but potentially masking granular glycemic fluctuations. Emerging and composite metrics offer deeper insights into glycemic patterns but lack standardization in calculation and interpretation, limiting their adoption and hindering cross-study comparison.
Conclusions:
While consensus exists for core clinical metrics, the lack of standardization for complex metrics hinders research replicability and clinical translation. Bridging this gap requires moving toward consensus metric definitions, open-science frameworks and standardized code libraries. This review provides a comprehensive resource for navigating the diverse spectrum of CGM metrics, clarifying their applications and limitations to support both research and clinical investigation.
Citation
Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.
Copyright
© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.