Back

Prevalence, duration, and clinical implications of Continuous Glucose Monitor (CGM) measurement limit capping in type 1 diabetes.

Mulley, J. F.

2026-05-15 endocrinology
10.64898/2026.05.13.26353094 medRxiv
Show abstract

Aims CGM devices report glucose only within fixed limits (typically 40-400 mg/dL; 2.2-22.2 mmol/L), truncating extreme values to a boundary ("capping"). We characterised prevalence, duration, and consequences of capping in type 1 diabetes trial data. Materials and Methods We analysed 46,990,617 CGM readings from 948 participants across four publicly available clinical trial datasets (Dexcom G4 Platinum or G6 sensors). Capping prevalence, run duration, and associations with age, HbA1c and sex were characterised across all datasets. In the 77 participants of the Replace-BG trial CGM-plus-blood glucose monitor (BGM) arm, CGM-derived metrics were compared with contemporaneous BGM measurements across 1,162 non-overlapping 14-day windows. Results Between 93.5% and 100% of participants had at least one capped reading, and capped values comprised 0.47-0.98% of all readings. In the three datasets for which duration could be calculated, over 70% of upper-cap runs exceeded 15 minutes and over one third exceeded 60 minutes. Upper-limit capping was inversely associated with age (Spearman {rho} -0.20 to -0.47, p[&le;]0.002) in three of the datasets, and positively associated with baseline HbA1c ({rho} 0.39-0.62, p<0.001) in all four datasets. A within-participant analysis showed that capping burden did not predict CGM-BGM divergence in any summary metric (all p>0.2), and a systematic CGM-BGM offset in mean glucose and time in range (TIR) reflected the physiological lag between blood and interstitial fluid rather than capping artefact. Conclusions Sensor limit capping is near-universal in type 1 diabetes, produces sustained periods of right-censored glucose data disproportionately affecting younger patients, and does not substantially distort standard summary metrics at the population level. Clinicians and trialists should be aware that CGM data can confirm extreme glucose events but cannot quantify their severity.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Diabetologia
36 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
17.5%
2
The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism
35 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
8.4%
3
Diabetes Care
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.8%
4
Diabetes
53 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.8%
5
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 24%
4.8%
6
eBioMedicine
130 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.3%
7
BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.0%
50% of probability mass above
8
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 38%
4.0%
9
Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.0%
10
Frontiers in Endocrinology
53 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
3.6%
11
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.1%
12
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 30%
2.9%
13
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 48%
2.1%
14
BMJ
49 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.8%
15
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
16
Nature Medicine
117 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
17
Communications Medicine
85 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.2%
18
Molecular Metabolism
105 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
19
The Journal of Pediatrics
15 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
20
JAMIA Open
37 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
21
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
22
Metabolites
50 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.9%
23
Molecular Systems Biology
142 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
24
Cell Reports Medicine
140 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.8%
25
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.7%
26
eClinicalMedicine
55 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
27
Genetics in Medicine Open
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
0.7%
28
International Journal of Epidemiology
74 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
29
European Respiratory Journal
54 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
30
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
21 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.6%