TPTina Pöttler

Tina Pöttler

*This is an algorithmically generated author record based on publicly available information.

Current Organizations / Institutes

The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article


Tina Pöttler has a total of 19 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:


Latest Publications

  • Open Access

    Glycemic Control Assessed by Intermittently Scanned Glucose Monitoring in Type 1 Diabetes during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Austria

    by Katharina Secco, Petra Martina Baumann, Tina Pöttler, Felix Aberer, Monika Cigler, Hesham Elsayed, Clemens Martin Harer, Raimund Weitgasser, Ingrid Schütz-Fuhrmann, Julia Katharina Mader

    Objective: The aim of this analysis was to assess glycemic control before and during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Methods: Data from 64 (main analysis) and 80 (sensitivity analysis) people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) were investigated retrospectively. The baseline characteristics were collected from electronic medical records. The data were examined over three periods of three months each: from 16th of March 2019 until 16th of June 2019 (pre-pandemic), from 1st of December 2019 until 29th of February 2020 (pre-lockdown) and from 16th of March 2020 until 16th of June 2020 (lockdown 2020), representing the very beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic and the first Austrian-wide lockdown. Results: For the main analysis, 64 individuals with T1D (22 female, 42 male), who had a mean glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) of 58.5 mmol/mol (51.0 to 69.3 mmol/mol) and a mean diabetes duration 13.5 years (5.5 to 22.0 years) were included in the analysis. The time in range (TIR[70–180mg/dL]) was the highest percentage of measures within all three studied phases, but the lockdown 2020 phase delivered the best data in all these cases. Concerning the time below range (TBR[) and the time above range (TAR[>180mg/dL]), the lockdown 2020 phase also had the best values. Regarding the sensitivity analysis, 80 individuals with T1D (26 female, 54 male), who had a mean HbA1c of 57.5 mmol/mol (51.0 to 69.3 mmol/mol) and a mean diabetes duration of 12.5 years (5.5 to 20.7 years), were included. The TIR[70–180mg/dL] was also the highest percentage of measures within all three studied phases, with the lockdown 2020 phase also delivering the best data in all these cases. The TBR[ and the TAR[>180mg/dL] underscored the data in the main analysis. Conclusion: Superior glycemic control, based on all parameters analyzed, was achieved during the first Austrian-wide lockdown compared to prior periods, which might be a result of reduced daily exertion or more time spent focusing on glycemic management.


  • Open Access

    Reply to Freckmann et al. Comment on “Hochfellner et al. Accuracy Assessment of the GlucoMen® Day CGM System in Individuals with Type 1 Diabetes: A Pilot Study. Biosensors 2022, 12, 106”

    by Daniel A. Hochfellner, Amra Simic, Marlene T. Taucher, Lea S. Sailer, Julia Kopanz, Tina Pöttler, Julia K. Mader


  • Open Access

    Accuracy Assessment of the GlucoMen® Day CGM System in Individuals with Type 1 Diabetes: A Pilot Study

    by Daniel A. Hochfellner, Amra Simic, Marlene T. Taucher, Lea S. Sailer, Julia Kopanz, Tina Pöttler, Julia K. Mader

    The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy and usability of a novel continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system designed for needle-free insertion and reduced environmental impact. We assessed the sensor performance of two GlucoMen® Day CGM systems worn simultaneously by eight participants with type 1 diabetes. Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) was performed regularly over 14 days at home. Participants underwent two standardized, 5-h meal challenges at the research center with frequent plasma glucose (PG) measurements using a laboratory reference (YSI) instrument. When comparing CGM to PG, the overall mean absolute relative difference (MARD) was 9.7 [2.6–14.6]%. The overall MARD for CGM vs. SMBG was 13.1 [3.5–18.6]%. The consensus error grid (CEG) analysis showed 98% of both CGM/PG and CGM/SMBG pairs in the clinically acceptable zones A and B. The analysis confirmed that GlucoMen® Day CGM meets the clinical requirements for state-of-the-art CGM. In addition, the needle-free insertion technology is well tolerated by users and reduces medical waste compared to conventional CGM systems.


  • Interpreting the recent consensus on time in range for interstitial glucose right – Or wrong?

    by Max L. Eckstein, Lisa Knoll, Tina Pöttler, Daniel A. Hochfellner, Alexander Müller, Harald Sourij, Othmar Moser, Julia K. Mader