On 2017 Jan 28, Thomas Jeanne commented:

There is ambiguity in the wording that the authors use in the body text and the abstract to describe the HbA1c reductions that were observed. A 1.1% mean reduction implies a relative reduction; e.g., a reduction from 7.6% A1c to 7.52% A1c. It is only after looking at Table 2 that it becomes clear that the observed change was an absolute reduction in the percentage of hemoglobin that was glycated. To avoid such confusion, use of the term "percentage point" is well-established (e.g., Hayward RA, 1997, Vijan S, 2014, Diabetes Control and Complications Trial/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (DCCT/EDIC) Research Group., 2016).

The mean reduction in HbA1c level from baseline was 1.1 percentage points in the CGM group at 12 weeks, not 1.1%.

On 2017 Jan 28, Thomas Jeanne commented:

There is ambiguity in the wording that the authors use in the body text and the abstract to describe the HbA1c reductions that were observed. A 1.1% mean reduction implies a relative reduction; e.g., a reduction from 7.6% A1c to 7.52% A1c. It is only after looking at Table 2 that it becomes clear that the observed change was an absolute reduction in the percentage of hemoglobin that was glycated. To avoid such confusion, use of the term "percentage point" is well-established (e.g., Hayward RA, 1997, Vijan S, 2014, Diabetes Control and Complications Trial/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (DCCT/EDIC) Research Group., 2016).

The mean reduction in HbA1c level from baseline was 1.1 percentage points in the CGM group at 12 weeks, not 1.1%.