Case Control Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2025.
World J Diabetes. Mar 15, 2025; 16(3): 99277
Published online Mar 15, 2025. doi: 10.4239/wjd.v16.i3.99277
Table 2 Comparison of continuous glucose monitoring-derived metrics between the non-diabetic foot and diabetic foot groups
Variables
NDF (n = 294)
DF (n = 297)
P value
CGM-derived metrics
    MBG, mmol/L8.23 (7.33-9.81)9.20 (8.00-10.70)< 0.001
    SD, mmol/L2.34 (1.80-2.92)2.40 (1.80-3.25)0.129
    CV, %26.80 (22.11-32.80)26.32 (20.56-33.78)0.496
    LAGE11.82 (8.98-14.71)11.50 (8.80-15.25) 0.929
    GRI24.52 (10.21-42.77)35.98 (18.87-59.29)< 0.001
    TIR, %76.90 (58.00-88.73)65.91 (43.68-81.95)< 0.001
    TAR, %20.26 (9.37-41.59)32.57 (16.26-55.43)< 0.001
    TAR level 1, %17.03 (8.44-31.71)25.35 (13.56-38.90)< 0.001
    TAR level 2, %2.81 (0.00-8.60)5.04 (0.00-14.97)< 0.001
    TBR, %0.00 (0.00-1.24)0.00 (0.00-0.69)0.114
    TBR level 1, %0.00 (0.00-1.08)0.00 (0.00-0.62)0.197
    TBR level 2, %0.00 (0.00-0.00)0.00 (0.00-0.00)0.031
CGM-derived indicator achievement, n (%)
    CV target250 (85.03)240 (80.81)0.172
    TIR target180 (61.22)128 (43.10)< 0.001
    TAR level 1 target196 (66.67)146 (49.16)< 0.001
    TAR level 2 target182 (61.90)148 (49.83)0.003
    TBR level 1 target262 (89.12)269 (90.57)0.558
    TBR level 2 target279 (94.90)284 (95.62)0.678