MVIIIHealth The MVIII app
← Back

Research · Devices and wearables

Continuous glucose monitors in people without diabetes

FDA cleared the first over-the-counter glucose sensors in 2024 for adults not using insulin. In people without diabetes, sensor readings differed from blood glucose by 7 to 19% on average, and two sensors worn together did not always rank meals alike. Pooled trials found lower mean glucose mainly in prediabetes and no change in body mass index.

Checked 2026-11-13
Status
FDA cleared the Dexcom Stelo Glucose Biosensor System on March 5, 2024 as the first over-the-counter continuous glucose monitor, for people 18 and older who do not use insulin, and stated it is not designed to alert users to low blood sugar [1]. FDA cleared the Abbott Lingo Glucose System for over-the-counter sale on May 29, 2024. Its accuracy study enrolled 150 adults with diabetes, and its indication states the user is not intended to take medical action on the output without consulting a healthcare professional [2].
Measures
Glucose in the fluid under the skin, measured around the clock by a small sensor worn on the body and reported as an estimate of blood glucose.
Also called
CGM, continuous glucose monitor, glucose biosensor, glucose sensor, over-the-counter CGM, OTC CGM, flash glucose monitor, Dexcom Stelo, Abbott Lingo, FreeStyle Libre, Dexcom G6
Used for
blood sugar tracking, glucose spikes, metabolic health, weight loss, diet personalization, prediabetes, energy, athletic fueling

Strong several reviews agree · Moderate one review or consistent trials · Limited one or a few small studies · Untested no study in people, listed with what it rests on

Matched the reference method4

Reported risks4

How it compares with the reference method

Matched the reference method4

Limited

Glucose reading against blood glucose, Abbott FreeStyle Libre

One study found FreeStyle Libre readings averaged about 1 mmol/L below plasma glucose after a meal in 40 overweight young adults, a 16 to 19% mean difference.

The numbers and sources
Device
Abbott FreeStyle Libre 14-day flash glucose monitoring system
Compared with
Plasma glucose, sampled for 4 hours after breakfast
Effect
Mean absolute relative difference from plasma glucose was 16.4% (SD 8.6) while sitting and 16.2% to 19.1% across three walking conditions. Bias was -1.03 mmol/L while sitting and -0.82 to -1.23 mmol/L while walking. On the Clarke error grid, 99.6 to 100% of values fell in zones A and B, which the authors called clinically acceptable overall [3].
Population
40 overweight or obese young adults pooled from two randomized crossover studies [3].
Sources
[3]
Caveats
The sensor read lower than plasma glucose in every condition. The Clarke error grid was designed for diabetes treatment decisions. One laboratory, after a single meal [3].
Limited

Glucose reading against blood glucose, Dexcom G6

One study found Dexcom G6 read within a median 7% of finger-prick glucose in 18 healthy adults, rising to 11% after a glucose drink.

The numbers and sources
Device
Dexcom G6
Compared with
Capillary (finger-prick) blood glucose, every 10 minutes for 120 minutes
Effect
Median absolute relative difference was 7.1% overall (IQR 3.3 to 10.8), 5.9% with no drink, 5.0% after saline, 7.5% after Ringer's solution and 11.0% after a 5% glucose solution. Overall bias was 4.3 mg/dL with limits of agreement from -19 to 28 mg/dL, widening to -33 to 41 mg/dL after the glucose solution [8].
Population
18 healthy adults (10 women), mean age 23.1, four visits each [8].
Sources
[8]
Caveats
Resting conditions after drinking fluids, not meals or exercise. Several authors reported fees or grants from diabetes drug and device companies [8].
Limited

Glucose reading against blood glucose, Medtronic Enlite

One study found Enlite sensor readings differed from venous glucose by a mean 17.6% in 34 healthy older adults and understated glucose variability.

The numbers and sources
Device
Medtronic Enlite sensor
Compared with
Venous blood glucose, sampled every 10 minutes for 24 hours
Effect
The median correlation between sensor and venous glucose per participant was 0.68 (IQR 0.40 to 0.78), and the mean absolute relative difference was 17.6% (SD 17). Daytime glucose was 0.22 mmol/L higher by sensor, with no difference at night. The 24-hour standard deviation was 1.07 by sensor and 1.26 by venous sampling (p = 0.004). The authors concluded that individual sensor readings agreed with venous glucose, while daytime glucose read higher and most variability measures read lower [9].
Population
34 healthy adults with normal glucose, mean age 65.7 [9].
Sources
[9]
Caveats
Published in 2015, so the sensor predates current models. One 24-hour period per person [9].
Limited

Agreement between two sensors worn together, Abbott FreeStyle Libre Pro and Dexcom G6

One study found paired sensors ranked a person's meals alike, with rank correlations of 0.9 for two of the same brand and 0.7 across brands.

The numbers and sources
Device
Two Abbott FreeStyle Libre Pro sensors (360 participants), or one FreeStyle Libre Pro and one Dexcom G6 (34 participants), worn simultaneously
Compared with
Each other. No blood reference was used.
Effect
For standardized meals, the coefficient of variation of the 2-hour glucose rise between paired sensors was 3.7% (IQR 1.7 to 7.1) for the same brand and 12.5% (IQR 5.1 to 24.8) across brands. Kendall rank correlation for meal rankings was 0.9 (IQR 0.8 to 0.9) for the same brand and 0.7 (IQR 0.5 to 0.8) across brands [12].
Population
394 participants in the ZOE PREDICT 1 study, up to 14 days, 4,457 standardized and 5,738 self-chosen meals [12].
Sources
[12]
Caveats
Supported by Zoe Ltd, and several authors are its employees or consultants. Only 34 participants wore two different brands [12].

Mixed results3

Limited

Glucose reading against blood glucose, Abbott FreeStyle Libre 3

Mixed results: one study of 9 young adults found FreeStyle Libre 3 read 8 to 18 mg/dL below finger-prick glucose around strength training, with large differences between individuals.

The numbers and sources
Device
Abbott FreeStyle Libre 3
Compared with
Capillary (finger-prick) blood glucose
Effect
Mean bias ranged from -7.95 to -17.83 mg/dL across the phases after breakfast, before, during and after exercise, and was largest after exercise. On the Clarke error grid, 50.5 to 64.3% of readings fell in zone A and 31.7 to 44.6% in zone B. The authors described accuracy as satisfactory at group level, varying substantially between individuals, and short of clinical criteria for diabetes monitoring [6].
Population
9 adults without diabetes, mean age 22, four strength training sessions each after high or low carbohydrate breakfasts [6].
Sources
[6]
Caveats
Nine participants. The authors bought the sensors with institute funds and reported no outside funding [6].
Limited

Glucose reading against blood glucose, Abbott Lingo

Mixed results: one study of 39 young adults found Lingo followed finger-prick glucose trends, with a 12.9% mean difference and two thirds of readings within 15%.

The numbers and sources
Device
Abbott Lingo Glucose Biosensor, sold over the counter
Compared with
Capillary (finger-prick) blood glucose from a meter
Effect
Mean absolute relative difference was 12.9%, mean bias -4.8 mg/dL, and 66.5% of readings were within 15% or 15 mg/dL of the meter. The difference was larger after a sugar-sweetened drink than after a placebo drink (15.3% against 10.6%, P < .01), and exercise had no consistent effect. Disagreement grew when glucose was changing faster. The sensor lagged the meter by an estimated 6.2 minutes. Of the app's trend arrows, 13.8% were classified as moderate to extreme risk [7].
Population
39 adults without diabetes aged 18 to 28 (19 women), in sessions combining rest or exercise with a placebo or sugar-sweetened drink [7].
Sources
[7]
Caveats
The authors describe this as the first independent evaluation of an over-the-counter sensor and state that threshold-based uses, such as detecting low glucose or self-screening for diabetes, warrant confirmatory testing. The reference was a finger-prick meter, not laboratory venous glucose. No direct funding, and one author reported advisory roles with two companies [7].
Moderate

Glucose reading against blood glucose, sensors pooled

Mixed results: a meta-analysis found sensors read 3.9 mg/dL from reference glucose on average in people without diabetes, a difference that was not statistically significant.

The numbers and sources
Device
Sensors pooled across studies of people without diabetes
Compared with
Reference glucose measurement
Effect
The pooled mean difference between sensor and reference glucose was -3.90 mg/dL (P = 0.40). The authors concluded evidence on measurement accuracy in people without diabetes remains limited [10].
Population
1,074 participants without diabetes in 23 studies from 11 countries [10].
Sources
[10]
Caveats
The abstract does not name the sensors pooled or the number of studies in the accuracy analysis. In one study, a mean bias of -4.8 mg/dL sat alongside a 12.9% mean absolute difference for single readings [7].

Did not match the reference method3

Limited

Glucose reading against blood glucose, Abbott FreeStyle Libre 2

Small studies found FreeStyle Libre 2 readings averaged 0.9 mmol/L above finger-prick glucose in 15 healthy adults and differed by 11 to 14% in 13 runners.

The numbers and sources
Device
Abbott FreeStyle Libre 2
Compared with
Capillary (finger-prick) blood glucose
Effect
In 15 healthy adults tested after seven carbohydrate drinks and foods, sensor glucose was 0.9 mmol/L higher than capillary glucose both fasting (SD 0.6) and after eating (SD 0.5). The sensor overestimated time above 7.8 mmol/L about 4-fold, and about 2-fold after correcting for each person's fasting difference. The glycemic index of one fruit smoothie was 69 by sensor and 53 by capillary sampling [4]. In 13 runners during treadmill running, mean absolute relative difference was 13.8% (SD 10.9) for a sensor on the arm and 11.4% (SD 9.0) on the chest, and about half of paired readings were within 10%. The authors concluded the sensor was not valid for point glucose readings and appeared valid for trends [5].
Population
15 healthy adults (9 women), 7 laboratory visits each [4]. 13 well-trained recreational runners without diabetes, mean age 40 [5].
Sources
[4], [5]
Caveats
The size of the sensor's fasting offset differed between participants [4]. That study was funded by an unrestricted grant from Innocent Drinks, which supplied test products [4]. Both samples were small.
Limited

Agreement between two sensors worn together, Abbott FreeStyle Libre Pro and Dexcom G4 Platinum

One study found two sensors worn at the same time ranked a person's meals differently, with a rank correlation of 0.43 across 760 meals.

The numbers and sources
Device
Abbott FreeStyle Libre Pro and Dexcom G4 Platinum, worn simultaneously
Compared with
Each other. No blood reference was used.
Effect
Across 27,489 simultaneous readings and 760 meals, within-person meal rankings by 2-hour glucose rise had a mean Kendall rank correlation of 0.43 (SD 0.05) between the two sensors. Choosing the meals one sensor ranked in the lower half produced 50% (SD 10) less glucose reduction when measured by the other sensor (P = 0.0002) [11].
Population
16 adults without diabetes during 28 inpatient days [11].
Sources
[11]
Caveats
Sixteen participants in a US National Institutes of Health inpatient study. The study cannot say which sensor was closer to blood glucose [11].
Limited

Repeat responses to the same meal, Abbott FreeStyle Libre Pro and Dexcom G4 Platinum

One study found a person's sensor glucose response to the same meal eaten a week apart agreed weakly, with intraclass correlations of 0.17 to 0.28.

The numbers and sources
Device
Abbott FreeStyle Libre Pro and Dexcom G4 Platinum
Compared with
The same sensor's reading for a duplicate meal about one week later
Effect
Across 1,189 responses to duplicate meals, the correlation between a person's two responses was 0.46 for Abbott (95% CI 0.38 to 0.54) and 0.45 for Dexcom (95% CI 0.39 to 0.50). Intraclass correlation was 0.28 for Abbott and 0.17 for Dexcom. Limits of agreement ran from -29.8 to 28.4 mg/dL for Abbott and -29.4 to 32.1 mg/dL for Dexcom. Variability between duplicate meals was similar to variability between different meals [13].
Population
30 adults without diabetes in two inpatient feeding studies [13].
Sources
[13]
Caveats
The result combines sensor error with day-to-day biological variation and does not separate them. The authors conclude that personalized diet advice from sensor data requires aggregated repeated measurements [13].

Does using one change anything

Mixed results3

Moderate

Blood glucose

Mixed results: pooled studies found lower mean glucose with sensor use in people with prediabetes and no appreciable change in healthy people with normal glucose.

The numbers and sources
Effect
A meta-analysis of studies in people without diabetes found sensor use lowered mean blood glucose against controls (SMD -0.54, 95% CI -1.02 to -0.07, P = 0.03). The authors reported the benefit in prediabetes and no appreciable glycemic benefit in healthy people with normal glucose [10]. A meta-analysis of 25 trials, most of them in diabetes, found sensor-based feedback lowered HbA1c by 0.28% (95% CI 0.15 to 0.42) [14]. In 30 adults with prediabetes and overweight, those who could see their sensor data during 30 days of nutrition therapy increased time in target range (p = 0.02), while a group blinded to the data did not change significantly [15]. In 40 overweight young adults, adding a sensor to diet education improved fasting glucose and HbA1c over 8 weeks (p < 0.05) [16].
Population
1,074 participants without diabetes in 23 studies [10]. 2,996 participants in 25 trials, 3 of them in adults with obesity and the rest in diabetes [14]. 30 adults with prediabetes [15]. 40 overweight young adults [16].
Sources
[10], [14], [15], [16]
Caveats
Sensors were used alongside diet education or coaching, so trials do not isolate the sensor. Eleven of the 25 trials in one review reported conflicts of interest tied to sensor makers, and heterogeneity was high (I² 88%) [14]. Single trials ran 30 days to 8 weeks with 30 to 40 participants [15][16].
Moderate

Body weight

Mixed results: pooled trials found no significant change in body mass index with sensor use, while single small trials ranged from no difference to 5 kg more weight loss.

The numbers and sources
Effect
In people without diabetes, body mass index did not differ between sensor users and controls (SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.63 to 0.12, P = 0.19) [10]. Across trials mostly in diabetes, differences in weight (-0.7 kg, 95% CI -1.4 to 0.0) and body mass index (-0.4, 95% CI -0.9 to 0.0) were not statistically significant [14]. In 35 women with overweight or obesity in a 12-week exercise and diet program, those who also used a sensor at the midpoint lost 5.5 kg against 0.2 kg in controls (P < 0.001) [17]. In 39 overweight adults with impaired glucose tolerance or mild type 2 diabetes, 24-week weight change did not differ (-1.8 kg with a sensor, -2.2 kg without) [18].
Population
1,074 participants without diabetes in 23 studies [10]. 2,996 participants in 25 trials [14]. 35 women [17]. 39 adults [18].
Sources
[10], [14], [17], [18]
Caveats
The authors of one review concluded a sensor is unlikely to achieve weight goals on its own without accompanying behavioral intervention [10]. The single trials were small and unblinded, and baseline body mass index differed between groups in one [18].
Limited

Diet and physical activity

Limited evidence: one systematic review found selected dietary changes with visible sensor readings in adults without diabetes and no clear difference in physical activity.

The numbers and sources
Effect
A systematic review of 12 studies found two randomized dietary comparisons suggesting selected improvements. In one 8-week trial, a sensor plus low glycemic index education reduced carbohydrate intake by 15.2 g (95% CI 9.5 to 20.9) and glycemic load by 19.9 (95% CI 10.7 to 29.0) more than education alone. Physical activity showed no clear difference (-28.5 MET-minutes a week, 95% CI -171.9 to 114.8) [19].
Population
Adults without diabetes in 12 randomized, nonrandomized and qualitative studies [19].
Sources
[19]
Caveats
Certainty was rated low for dietary outcomes and very low for the others. Differences between studies ruled out meta-analysis. The review concluded that large, durable benefits and an effect of the sensor on its own are not established [19].

Risks

Reported risks3

Moderate

Readings outside clinical thresholds in people with normal glucose

Linked to sensor readings above 140 mg/dL for 30 minutes to 3 hours a day in people with normal glucose, and experts disagreed on which reports needed follow-up.

The numbers and sources
Effect
In 153 healthy children and adults wearing a blinded Dexcom G6, median time above 140 mg/dL was 2.1% (30 minutes a day) and median time below 70 mg/dL was 1.1% (15 minutes a day). Mean glucose was 98 to 99 mg/dL, and 104 mg/dL in those over 60 [20]. In 560 adults with normal glucose wearing a blinded Dexcom G6 Pro, 12.1% of time (about 3 hours a day) was above 140 mg/dL and 1.2% (more than 15 minutes a day) above 180 mg/dL [21]. When 18 expert clinicians reviewed 20 sensor reports from people without diabetes, 56 to 100% said they would advise follow-up for those with more than 2% of time above 180 mg/dL even when HbA1c and fasting glucose were normal, and agreement on who needed follow-up was low (Fleiss kappa 0.36) [22].
Population
153 healthy people aged 7 to 80 without obesity, up to 10 days [20]. 560 community-dwelling adults with normal glucose, mean age 58.5, 7 or more days [21]. 18 clinicians reviewing 20 reports chosen as potentially challenging [22].
Sources
[20], [21], [22]
Caveats
The two cohorts differ in age and in time above 140 mg/dL. The Framingham cohort was 93.3% non-Hispanic White [21]. No study here followed people to see whether a reading led to testing or harm. A separate study found one sensor overestimated time above 7.8 mmol/L (140 mg/dL) about 4-fold against finger-prick glucose [4].
Moderate

Skin reactions at the sensor site

Linked to skin reactions at about one event per eight weeks of sensor wear in trials of people with diabetes, with 1.5% rated severe.

The numbers and sources
Effect
A systematic review of 54 studies found, across 19 trials, one skin complication per eight weeks of sensor wear time, of which 1.5% were considered severe. Redness, itching and hardening of the skin were the most common, and skin irritation was the most common reason for stopping sensor use [23]. FDA reported that adverse events in the clearance study of an over-the-counter sensor included local infection, skin irritation and pain or discomfort [1].
Population
People using sensors for diabetes management in 54 trials and observational studies [23]. Participants in the Dexcom Stelo clearance study [1].
Sources
[23], [1]
Caveats
The review covers people with diabetes and sensor models sold before 2019, and its authors note that trials and observational studies reported skin events inconsistently [23]. The FDA announcement gives no rates [1].
Moderate

Smartwatches and rings that claim to measure glucose

FDA states it has not authorized any smartwatch or smart ring that measures blood glucose on its own without piercing the skin.

The numbers and sources
Effect
In a February 2024 safety communication, FDA warned that smartwatches and smart rings claiming to measure blood glucose without piercing the skin have not been authorized, cleared or approved, and that their readings could be inaccurate. FDA distinguished these from watch apps that display data from an authorized sensor worn under the skin [24].
Population
Consumers, patients, caregivers and health care providers in the US [24].
Sources
[24]
Caveats
The warning concerns noninvasive watches and rings, not the under-skin sensors covered by the rest of this page. FDA described the harm in terms of medication dosing errors in people with diabetes [24].

Mixed results1

Limited

Anxiety or distress about readings

Limited evidence: a systematic review found too little evidence to establish or exclude psychological harm from visible glucose readings in adults without diabetes.

The numbers and sources
Effect
A systematic review of 12 studies of participant-visible sensors in adults without diabetes judged the psychosocial evidence insufficient to establish benefit or exclude harm, and found evidence on device burden sparse [19].
Population
Adults without diabetes in 12 studies [19].
Sources
[19]
Caveats
Certainty was rated very low for psychosocial outcomes [19].

Sources

  1. US Food and Drug Administration. FDA Clears First Over-the-Counter Continuous Glucose Monitor. Press announcement. March 5, 2024. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-clears-first-over-counter-continuous-glucose-monitor
  2. US Food and Drug Administration. 510(k) Substantial Equivalence Determination Decision Summary K233655, Lingo Glucose System. Decision date May 29, 2024. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/reviews/K233655.pdf
  3. Zhang X, Sun F, Wongpipit W, et al. Accuracy of Flash Glucose Monitoring During Postprandial Rest and Different Walking Conditions in Overweight or Obese Young Adults. Frontiers in Physiology. 2021. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2021.732751
  4. Hutchins KM, Betts JA, Thompson D, et al. Continuous glucose monitor overestimates glycemia, with the magnitude of bias varying by postprandial test and individual, a randomized crossover trial. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajcnut.2025.02.024
  5. Mason LJ, Hartwig T, Greene D. Validating the Use of Continuous Glucose Monitors With Nondiabetic Recreational Runners. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2024-0102
  6. Matzka M, Ørtenblad N, Lenk M, Sperlich B. Accuracy of a continuous glucose monitoring system applied before, during, and after an intense leg-squat session with low- and high-carbohydrate availability in young adults without diabetes. European Journal of Applied Physiology. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-024-05557-5
  7. Prakash N, Barrows AH, Stults-Kolehmainen M, et al. Agreement of Over-the-Counter Continuous Glucose Monitors With Capillary-Meter Glucose in Young Adults Without Diabetes. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology. 2026. https://doi.org/10.1177/19322968261482150
  8. Schierbauer JR, Günther S, Haupt S, et al. Accuracy of Real Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring during Different Liquid Solution Challenges in Healthy Adults: A Randomized Controlled Cross-Over Trial. Sensors. 2022. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22093104
  9. Akintola AA, Noordam R, Jansen SW, et al. Accuracy of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Measurements in Normo-Glycemic Individuals. PLOS ONE. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139973
  10. Liao X, Li Y, Tang S, et al. Continuous glucose monitoring in non-diabetic populations: a systematic review of observational and interventional studies with meta-analysis. European Journal of Medical Research. 2026. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40001-026-03920-0
  11. Howard R, Guo J, Hall KD. Imprecision nutrition? Different simultaneous continuous glucose monitors provide discordant meal rankings for incremental postprandial glucose in subjects without diabetes. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/nqaa198
  12. Merino J, Linenberg I, Bermingham KM, et al. Validity of continuous glucose monitoring for categorizing glycemic responses to diet: implications for use in personalized nutrition. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/nqac026
  13. Hengist A, Ong JA, McNeel K, et al. Imprecision nutrition? Intraindividual variability of glucose responses to duplicate presented meals in adults without diabetes. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajcnut.2024.10.007
  14. Richardson KM, Jospe MR, Bohlen LC, et al. The efficacy of using continuous glucose monitoring as a behaviour change tool in populations with and without diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-024-01692-6
  15. Basiri R, Cheskin LJ. Enhancing the Impact of Individualized Nutrition Therapy with Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring Feedback in Overweight and Obese Individuals with Prediabetes. Nutrients. 2024. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16234005
  16. Chekima K, Noor MI, Ooi YBH, et al. Utilising a Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitor as Part of a Low Glycaemic Index and Load Diet and Determining Its Effect on Improving Dietary Intake, Body Composition and Metabolic Parameters of Overweight and Obese Young Adults: A Randomised Controlled Trial. Foods. 2022. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11121754
  17. Gradiser M, Bilic-Curcic I, Okun I, et al. Intermittently Scanned Continuous Glucose Monitoring Enhances Weight Loss and Adherence in Women with Obesity: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Diabetes Technology and Therapeutics. 2026. https://doi.org/10.1177/15209156261423952
  18. Nishikage S, Nakagawa Y, Hirota Y, et al. Effects of intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring on body weight and glycemic variability in individuals with overweight and impaired glucose tolerance or mild diabetes: A pilot randomized controlled trial. Obesity Research and Clinical Practice. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orcp.2025.01.008
  19. Makkena HB, Nimmagadda Y, Boinapelly N, et al. Behavioral and Psychosocial Effects of Participant-Visible Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Adults Without Diabetes: A Systematic Review. Medicina. 2026. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina62091814
  20. Shah VN, DuBose SN, Li Z, et al. Continuous Glucose Monitoring Profiles in Healthy Nondiabetic Participants: A Multicenter Prospective Study. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2018-02763
  21. Spartano NL, Sultana N, Lin H, et al. Defining Continuous Glucose Monitor Time in Range in a Large, Community-Based Cohort Without Diabetes. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1210/clinem/dgae626
  22. Spartano NL, Prescott B, Walker ME, et al. Expert Clinical Interpretation of Continuous Glucose Monitor Reports From Individuals Without Diabetes. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology. 2026. https://doi.org/10.1177/19322968251315171
  23. Asarani NAM, Reynolds AN, Boucher SE, et al. Cutaneous Complications With Continuous or Flash Glucose Monitoring Use: Systematic Review of Trials and Observational Studies. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932296819870849
  24. US Food and Drug Administration. Do Not Use Smartwatches or Smart Rings to Measure Blood Glucose Levels: FDA Safety Communication. February 21, 2024. https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/safety-communications/do-not-use-smartwatches-or-smart-rings-measure-blood-glucose-levels-fda-safety-communication

Everything in the library