“Time in range” needs a defined range and a measurement schedule. Otherwise, readers cannot tell which result a summary is describing. Primary report
Study snapshot
The SURPASS-3 CGM substudy enrolled 243 participants. Glucose monitoring covered approximately seven days at baseline, 24 weeks, and 52 weeks. The primary comparison used a tight range of 71–140 mg/dL at week 52 and pooled two tirzepatide groups against insulin degludec. The indexed abstract reports a favorable difference for tirzepatide. PubMed links an erratum, PMID 35752191; its full scope must be checked before quantitative release. Primary report
Our appraisal: continuous measurement is not continuous follow-up
A device can collect frequent observations during a monitoring session without measuring the participant throughout the entire trial. Those two uses of “continuous” should not be confused. The interpretation needs both the within-session sampling and the calendar periods observed.
Likewise, the word “range” cannot safely be detached from its lower and upper bounds. Changing either boundary can change the time counted inside it. A summary should preserve the study's definition rather than silently substitute another commonly used target.
For release review, inspect valid-wear criteria, missing sessions, whether monitoring periods were representative, and the correction notice. This paper should also be linked to its parent trial so that glucose observations and HbA1c results are not miscounted as independent recruitment.
The correction link is a reason to inspect the publication history, not a reason to infer misconduct or assume the conclusion was reversed. Until its contents are checked, a numerical comparison table would imply verification that has not been completed.
Frequently asked questions
What range did the primary comparison use?
The abstract specifies 71–140 mg/dL.
Was everyone monitored continuously for 52 weeks?
No. Monitoring occurred in specified sessions.
Was this a new independent trial?
No. It was a SURPASS-3 substudy.
Does changing the range definition matter?
Yes. It changes which observations count within range.
Is a correction linked?
Yes. PubMed identifies PMID 35752191 as an erratum.
Does a correction automatically invalidate a paper?
No. Its actual scope must be read.
Which source checks remain incomplete?
The linked correction notice and full study methods have not yet been fully checked for this summary.