Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Malaysia and Indonesia: Clinical Instrument or Consumer Noise?

Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Malaysia and Indonesia: Clinical Instrument or Consumer Noise?

Abstract

Continuous glucose monitoring has begun to move outside the diabetes clinic across Southeast Asia, arriving in Malaysia and Indonesia ahead of any local evidence base to justify its use in people without a diagnosis. This paper argues that the two countries, though frequently discussed as a single regional market, present structurally different problems to which CGM offers structurally different value. Malaysia has a detection failure among young adults who already possess access to diagnosis; Indonesia has a diagnosis failure of a scale that no individual device can address, compounded by evidence that expanding detection without strengthening downstream management has already produced more diagnoses without better outcomes. Drawing on national health survey data, the PURE cohort, Malaysia's own health technology assessment, the 2026 EASD clinical practice guideline, and the limited regional CGM literature, we argue for a narrow position: periodic rather than continuous sensor use, framed as a trigger for clinical consultation rather than a substitute for one. We note throughout that neither country possesses normative CGM reference data for its own population, and that this absence, more than any accuracy dispute, is the central obstacle to interpreting what these devices report.

1. Introduction

The case for CGM in people without a diabetes diagnosis rests on an appeal to granularity. A single fasting glucose measurement captures one moment; a sensor captures a fortnight. Endocrinologists at Singapore General Hospital have advanced this argument in its most careful form, observing that CGM permits fasting, postprandial and mean glycaemia to be interrogated simultaneously, and that the resulting feedback becomes visible to the individual within days rather than the several months required for a meaningful change in HbA1c [1]. Their framing deserves preservation precisely because it is modest. CGM informs the next clinical encounter; it does not replace it. A recent Malaysian review reaches a similar position, examining CGM derived metrics including time in range, ambulatory glucose profile, CONGA and MODD, and noting active research into applications extending beyond established diabetes care [2].

The evidentiary ground shifted in 2026 with the publication of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes clinical practice guideline on CGM in type 2 diabetes, developed under GRADE methodology by a twelve member panel that included two people with lived experience of diabetes, and supported by a de novo systematic review and meta analysis addressing nine PICO questions [3]. That guideline is relevant here for two reasons beyond its headline findings. It formally examined patterns of access, comparing continuous against periodic use, which is the precise question this paper raises for undiagnosed populations. And it identified as a central concern the risk that broader CGM recommendation disproportionately benefits those already digitally literate and better resourced while leaving the greatest clinical need underserved [3]. That equity warning, issued for European health systems, applies with considerably greater force in the settings examined below.

What follows carries the question into Malaysia and Indonesia, two countries whose epidemiological profiles are commonly collapsed into one and which, on close reading, do not resemble each other.

2. Malaysia: detection failure in a population with access

Malaysia presents the more tractable of the two problems. The 2023 National Health and Morbidity Survey recorded adult diabetes prevalence at 15.6%, rising from 13.4% in 2015 [4]. This corresponds to roughly 3.6 million adults, approximately one in six, of whom two in five remain unaware of their condition, and the Ministry of Health has acknowledged that Malaysia now records the highest prevalence in Southeast Asia [5]. Encouragingly, the proportion of the adult population with undiagnosed diabetes fell from 8.9% in 2019 to 5.9% in 2023 [6], which suggests existing screening infrastructure is achieving something.

The exception to that improvement is striking. Among Malaysians aged 18 to 29 who have diabetes, 84% do not know it, a figure the Health Minister singled out on the grounds that undiagnosed non communicable disease in younger cohorts translates directly into earlier complications [7]. This is not a story about clinics being unreachable. Urban Malaysians in their twenties can obtain a fasting glucose test without difficulty. The obstacle is that nothing in an asymptomatic young adult's life generates the prompt to seek one. A device acquired out of curiosity, which incidentally produces a clinical signal, addresses a behavioural gap rather than an infrastructural one, and it is in this narrow sense that the consumer market may be performing useful work.

Risk in Malaysia is also unevenly distributed in a manner that population averaged advice obscures. A meta analysis pooling 103,063 participants across fifteen studies found diabetes prevalence of 25.10% among Malaysian Indians, 15.25% among Malays, 12.87% among Chinese Malaysians and 8.62% among Bumiputera populations, with pooled prediabetes at 11.62% [8]. A baseline risk of one in four is not the same clinical question as one in twelve, yet both groups receive identical dietary guidance and identical body mass index thresholds for screening referral.

There is reason to believe the intervention window is both real and short. A retrospective cohort of 705 adults with prediabetes attending 28 health clinics in Terengganu between 2019 and 2023 found that across two years of follow up, 25.0% reverted to normoglycemia, 59.1% remained stable in prediabetes, and 15.9% progressed to diabetes [4]. This finding is often cited in support of early monitoring, and it does support it, but honesty requires noting that the quarter who reverted did so under ordinary clinic follow up without CGM. Any argument for the device must demonstrate improvement on that baseline, and no Malaysian study has attempted the comparison.

Dietary context compounds the picture without fully explaining it. The PURE study, following 132,373 participants across 21 countries, found that consumption of cooked white rice at or above 450 g per day, compared with under 150 g per day, was associated with a hazard ratio of 1.20 overall, rising to 1.41 in the grouping containing Southeast Asia [9]. Southeast Asian participants recorded a median intake of 239 g per day, the second highest of any region examined, and a later meta analysis of fifteen cohorts totalling 577,426 participants reported that above approximately 300 g per day, each additional 158 g serving carried a 13% increase in type 2 diabetes risk [5]. The complication, and it is substantial, is that PURE found the association strongest in South Asia at HR 1.61 and statistically non significant in China [9]. Rice is not uniformly hazardous across populations, which is an argument against blanket dietary advice and, by extension, an argument for individual measurement.

Malaysia is unusual in the region for having examined CGM formally through its own health technology assessment process. Researchers at the Malaysian Health Technology Assessment Section conducted focus group discussions with 30 patients and caregivers managing insulin requiring diabetes in Kuala Lumpur and Putrajaya between May and September 2023 [10]. Participants described CGM as transformative, citing real time data, improved glycemic control, and reduced anxiety associated with frequent glucose checks. They also identified substantial barriers: high cost, limited access, technical failures and social stigma, the last particularly among adolescents [10]. The finding most relevant to the present argument is that some patients could use CGM only intermittently because of financial constraints, which the authors framed as a burden on consistent usage [11]. The resulting policy recommendations prioritized CGM for high risk type 1 patients and proposed tiered subsidy frameworks, bulk procurement negotiation, insurer reimbursement, and enhanced training for healthcare providers to interpret CGM output [11]. The sample was small at 30 participants and the authors themselves caution against generalization.

The intermittent use finding deserves emphasis, because it inverts the usual framing. Malaysian patients who need CGM continuously are already using it periodically, not by design but by economic necessity. The proposal advanced later in this paper is therefore not an exotic protocol. It describes what a portion of the Malaysian diabetic population is already doing, and, as section 5 sets out, it now has guideline level evidence behind it.

3. Indonesia: a diagnosis gap that dwarfs the instrument

Indonesia's position is not a more severe version of Malaysia's. It is a different problem, and the recently published cascade analyses make the distinction unusually clear.

Prevalence has been remarkably stable: 10.7% among those aged fifteen and above in 2013, 11.8% in 2018, and 11.3% in 2023 [12]. The care cascade tells the real story. Analysis of the three national health surveys, covering 68,634 biomedical samples, found that diagnosis rose from 15.1% in 2013 to 20.7% in 2023, approximately 5.6 million of an estimated 27.6 million people [13]. A separate analysis of Riskesdas 2018 placed undiagnosed cases at 80% of all diabetes, with elevated odds among young adults, rural residents, agricultural workers and lower wealth quintiles [14]. Against a global target of 80% diagnosis, Indonesia operates at roughly a quarter of that standard.

The downstream findings are where the argument for consumer detection technology encounters its most serious obstacle. Treatment coverage nearly doubled across the decade, from 10.5% to 19.0% of the diabetic population, and among those diagnosed, the treated proportion rose from 68.4% to 92.1% [13]. Yet glycemic control across the diabetes population rose only from 4.6% to 6.5%, representing 3.39 million of 27.5 million individuals, and among treated patients the proportion achieving control declined, from 44.2% in 2013 to 33.9% in 2023 [13]. The authors are explicit about the implication: expanding detection without strengthening chronic disease management risks reproducing an existing pattern of more diagnoses without better outcomes [13]. A companion serial analysis of behavioural, clinical and laboratory outcomes across the same period reaches consistent conclusions [15].

Inequity compounds this. In 2023, diagnosis reached 35.3% in the wealthiest quintile against 11.0% in the poorest, with adjusted odds of diagnosis 3.55 times higher in the top quintile [13]. Urban residents were diagnosed at 23.8% against 15.5% rurally. Critically for any argument about consumer devices, the 15 to 40 age group showed the lowest performance and the least improvement across every cascade stage [13].

Prediabetes prevalence deserves separate attention for what it does to the logic of screening. In 2023 it stood at 39.2%, down from 44.5% in 2013, with the sharpest decline in rural areas, from 47.2% to 39.1% [12]. When two in five adults meet the criteria, a device reporting elevated postprandial glucose is not surfacing a concealed minority. It is confirming the base rate.

There is, however, one Indonesian finding that speaks directly in favour of the argument this paper is examining. Current Indonesian guidance directs extensive screening toward individuals aged 40 or above or with BMI above 25. Yet individuals with normal BMI, between 18.5 and 25, account for 47% of all undiagnosed diabetes cases [13]. Nearly half the undiagnosed burden sits outside the anthropometric criterion used to trigger investigation. This is the same phenotypic problem observed in the Singaporean cohort, appearing here at national scale, and it constitutes the strongest available justification for any measurement approach that does not rely on body habitus as its entry criterion.

The infrastructure that would have to receive and interpret such measurements is, however, thin. The 2019 national health facility survey found that while 86.7% of urban puskesmas can perform blood glucose testing on site, only 60.9% of remote and very remote facilities can, with 24.5% unable to test at all, and HbA1c testing essentially absent from the primary care level [13]. Indonesia launched a nationwide screening programme in February 2025, which detected diabetes in only 6% of those screened, a yield the cascade authors attribute largely to reliance on random blood glucose tests that are no longer recommended, compounded by facility operating hours of 8am to 1pm that do not match the working population's availability [13].

Dietary exposure is comparable to Malaysia's. Household rice consumption has been recorded at approximately 77.5 kg per capita per year against national consumption of 28.69 million tonnes in 2019 [16], and Indonesia falls within the PURE Southeast Asian grouping [9]. Indonesian nutritional science has begun asking whether preparation method alters the glycemic index of nasi putih [16], precisely the sort of question population scale CGM data could answer, and which remains unanswered because that data has never been collected.

The Indonesian CGM literature is, at present, a literature about other countries' data. Recent Indonesian systematic reviews synthesize foreign studies on CGM in diabetes management and quality of life, concluding that CGM outperforms self monitoring of blood glucose on glycemic control and patient comfort while costing considerably more, and identifying health system integration barriers including cloud based data retrieval requiring IT collaboration to operationalize [17]. What does not exist is any normative Indonesian dataset. There are no published reference intervals for Javanese, Sundanese, Batak, Bugis or Minang adults, and no local validation of what time above 140 mg/dL signifies in a population whose meals are structured around rice.

We have deliberately excluded consumer pricing and adoption figures from the visibly active Indonesian retail market, because no peer reviewed or otherwise verifiable source documents them. This is itself a finding. Cost is identified as a barrier in the Indonesian review literature [17], Malaysia's health technology assessment quantifies affordability as the dominant constraint on consistent use even among patients with a clinical indication [10], and the EASD panel identified precisely this dynamic, benefit accruing to the better resourced while clinical need goes unmet, as requiring deliberate mitigation rather than passive acceptance [3]. Given the wealth gradient in Indonesian diagnosis [13], claims that consumer CGM constitutes a public health intervention in Indonesia should be abandoned.

4. Three failure modes with regional specificity

The general accuracy critique of CGM in non diabetic populations applies here as elsewhere. Three problems, however, warrant local treatment.

Device reliability. Malaysian patients in the health technology assessment reported device malfunctions and sensor failures frequently enough for the authors to identify technical issues as a distinct barrier category [11]. These were patients using devices obtained through clinical channels. Where regulatory scrutiny is uneven and cheaper unfamiliar devices circulate, accuracy cannot be treated as a fixed property of the device category. A poorly performing sensor generating an alarming reading in a population where prediabetes prevalence approaches 40% [12] produces considerable anxiety and very little information.

Interpretation capacity. The Malaysian assessment recommended enhanced provider training to optimize CGM use [11], the Indonesian review identified health system integration as an unresolved obstacle [17], and the EASD panel judged successful implementation to depend on clinician training and integration of CGM data into routine workflows [3]. But the Indonesian cascade analysis establishes something sharper: in a system where a quarter of remote primary care facilities cannot perform a glucose test at all and HbA1c is essentially unavailable at that level [13], a patient arriving with a fortnight of ambulatory glucose data has brought a document the facility possesses no capacity to contextualize.

Recursive misinterpretation against foreign reference ranges. This is the least discussed and, in these markets, potentially the most consequential. A clinical review of the endurance athlete paradox describes the mechanism precisely: an individual receives an ambiguous or falsely elevated laboratory result, purchases a CGM seeking reassurance, observes a postprandial excursion that is entirely normal for their physiology, and interprets it through the disease framing they have already absorbed, so that a tool intended to add context instead amplifies the original misreading [18]. The same review notes that when researchers examined day to day glycemic variability in elite endurance athletes, variability was comparable to healthy non athletes and well below that of people with diabetes, yet no CGM reference ranges validated specifically for athletes exist, leaving users implicitly measured against benchmarks derived from populations they do not belong to [18].

Substitute "Javanese adults eating nasi padang" for "endurance athletes" and the structure of the problem is identical, with one aggravating difference: the athlete at least belongs to the broad population from which the thresholds were derived, whereas the Southeast Asian user is being measured against reference intervals built on cohorts with different body composition at equivalent BMI, different beta cell function, and a different staple carbohydrate. The review's broader argument, that measuring the right things badly or interpreting good measurements without context does not advance prevention but manufactures pseudo-disease, is the sharpest available formulation of the risk this paper is weighing [18].

A related methodological caveat deserves flagging, because it touches the Indonesian and Singaporean data directly. Both the SGH cohort and Indonesian classification rely substantially on HbA1c. Yet HbA1c is a product of two variables, glucose exposure and red blood cell lifespan, and red cell survival varies enough among haematologically normal people, roughly 38 to 60 days by direct measurement, to shift HbA1c by half a percentage point at identical average glucose [18]. Where anaemia, haemoglobin variants or altered red cell turnover are prevalent in a population, HbA1c based prediabetes classification carries an error term that CGM does not share, since CGM measures glucose directly. This cuts in CGM's favour, though establishing its magnitude in Malaysian and Indonesian populations would require haematological data this paper has not examined.

5. Periodic use: from inference to guideline

The proposal advanced here previously rested on inference. The 2026 EASD guideline addressed the question directly, and the finding is worth stating carefully because it is both supportive and limited.

The guideline's meta analysis found that continuous, uninterrupted CGM use was associated with small improvements in HbA1c, time in range, time below range and treatment satisfaction, while periodic use produced comparable small HbA1c benefits and improved time in range [3]. No trial has directly compared the two access patterns, so their relative merits remain an open empirical question. The panel nonetheless suggested periodic use may be particularly valuable during periods of change, specifically naming new diagnosis, medication titration, illness and pregnancy, while cautioning that it may be unsuitable for those at higher hypoglycaemia risk including people treated with insulin or sulphonylureas [3]. That caution does not bind an undiagnosed population not taking glucose lowering medication, which is the group this paper concerns.

Three further guideline findings bear on the argument. First, across the general adult type 2 population, CGM added to usual care produced an HbA1c reduction of approximately 0.32 percentage points with improvements in time in range and treatment satisfaction and no increase in hypoglycaemia, supporting a conditional recommendation given low certainty of evidence and cost implications [3]. Second, and most relevant to a population not on insulin, people treated with non insulin agents showed small HbA1c reductions alongside clinically meaningful quality of life improvements and gains in time in range, weight and treatment satisfaction with minimal harms, in what the panel noted was historically the group least routinely offered monitoring technology [3]. Third, and cutting the other way, masked or professional CGM, in which data are hidden from the user and reviewed later with a clinician, produced no significant HbA1c reduction and was recommended against for routine clinical use, while retaining value as a research and diagnostic tool for characterising glycemic patterns without influencing behaviour [3].

That third finding is worth dwelling on, because the Singaporean reference data cited throughout this paper was generated using precisely such a blinded device [1]. The EASD position is not that masked CGM is worthless but that its value is diagnostic and epidemiological rather than behavioural. This maps cleanly onto the two distinct proposals in circulation: masked CGM for the generation of Malaysian and Indonesian normative reference intervals, which is a research programme, and unmasked periodic CGM as a behavioural and referral trigger, which is a consumer proposition. They should not be conflated.

The guideline is also candid about harms, listing being overwhelmed by continuous data, frustration at persistently out of range readings, shame or stigma that discourages engagement, and the potential in vulnerable individuals to contribute to disordered eating, disordered exercise, or a form of data preoccupation [3]. The panel's response was not to restrict access but to require that CGM sit within person centred care, tailored to preferences, digital confidence and available support. Notably, the evidence base underpinning these conclusions was geographically concentrated, with 40% of trials conducted in North America, 27% in East and Southeast Asia and 19% in Western Europe [3]. The Southeast Asian representation is better than one might expect, though the guideline does not disaggregate East from Southeast Asian trials, and none of the Malaysian or Indonesian literature reviewed here appears among them.

6. A proposal, differentiated by country

For Malaysia, the case can now be made with reasonable confidence and with guideline support. The target population is identifiable: adults aged 18 to 29, among whom 84% of those with diabetes are unaware [7], and Malaysian Indians carrying 25.1% prevalence [8]. The country has already conducted a formal assessment of the technology and articulated a subsidy and training pathway [11]. Periodic wear falls within the two year window during which a quarter of individuals with prediabetes revert to normoglycemia [4], mirrors a usage pattern Malaysian patients already adopt under financial constraint [11], and now carries meta analytic evidence of comparable HbA1c and time in range benefit to continuous wear [3].

For Indonesia, the claim must be narrowed considerably, and the cascade evidence sets the terms. CGM should be positioned as an entry point into the diagnostic pathway for the segment already able to afford it, and explicitly not as a screening tool for the population. The normal BMI finding strengthens this considerably, since 47% of undiagnosed cases sit outside the anthropometric criterion currently used to trigger investigation [13]. But the same analysis warns that detection expanded without downstream capacity has already yielded declining control among treated patients [13]. A device that produces additional diagnoses into a system whose control rate is falling is not obviously a contribution.

Four conditions apply in both settings. CGM should function as a trigger for clinical assessment and never as a substitute for fasting glucose, oral glucose tolerance testing or HbA1c. Interpretation should rest on relative change measured on a consistent device rather than absolute thresholds imported from reference intervals never validated in Malay, Javanese or Indian Malaysian populations. Where an ambiguous result arises, the appropriate response is a broader workup rather than a repeat sensor, since fasting insulin and HOMA-IR interrogate mechanism rather than surface number, and glycation independent markers such as fructosamine or glycated albumin can resolve discrepancies attributable to red cell biology [18]. And it should be stated plainly that no trial has evaluated periodic CGM in undiagnosed adults in either country.

7. Limitations

Several caveats constrain this argument. Malaysian prevalence estimates are internally inconsistent across the peer reviewed literature, with NHMS 2019 reported variously as 13.4% and 18.3% [8][4], and 2023 absolute counts ranging between 3.6 and 3.9 million depending on source. The Malaysian health technology assessment sampled 30 participants in two urban centres and cannot be generalized to rural or lower income populations [11]. The Indonesian cascade analysis remains a preprint and its authors note limited statistical power at the control stage [13]. The EASD guideline's certainty of evidence was rated low or very low for the majority of its clinical questions, reflecting heterogeneity and imprecision, and no direct comparison between continuous and periodic access exists [3]; its findings also concern people with diagnosed type 2 diabetes, and their extension to undiagnosed populations is an inference this paper makes, not a conclusion the guideline draws. References 3, 18 and 19 are secondary reviews published by A1C Almanac, the editorial publication of a commercial metabolic health platform; where their findings carry argumentative weight we have named the underlying primary sources, and readers evaluating them should note the publisher's commercial interest in CGM adoption. Finally, no verifiable published data exists on Indonesian consumer CGM pricing or uptake.

8. Conclusion

Whether CGM constitutes signal or noise cannot be answered for Southeast Asia as a unit, because the answer depends on what the surrounding health system is already failing to do. In Malaysia, where diagnosis is accessible but young adults do not present for it, and where a national health technology assessment has mapped the barriers to adoption, periodic sensor use plausibly closes a behavioural gap and now carries guideline level evidence of benefit comparable to continuous wear. In Indonesia, the case is genuinely double edged: nearly half of undiagnosed cases fall outside the BMI criterion that currently triggers screening, which argues for a measurement approach independent of body habitus, yet glycemic control among treated patients has fallen even as diagnosis and treatment expanded, which argues that additional detection is not the constraint.

Underlying both is a problem the endurance athlete literature states more clearly than the epidemiological literature does. A screening test is only as good as the interpretation laid over it, and almost every threshold in common use was derived from populations whose physiology is, by construction, average [18]. Two individuals may share an identical HbA1c while experiencing profoundly different glycemic patterns that the single measurement cannot distinguish [19]. The most valuable contribution CGM might make in Malaysia and Indonesia over the coming years may therefore not be individual at all. It would be the generation of normative reference data for populations that presently borrow their thresholds from elsewhere, so that the next generation of users is told something about their own physiology rather than someone else's.

References

[1] Rama Chandran S, Sng GGR, Wong CYH, Ang WM, Gardner D. Continuous Glucose Monitoring Metrics in Asians Without Diabetes: Differentiating Prediabetes From Normoglycemia. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, 21 October 2025. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/19322968251384682

[2] Continuous Blood Glucose Monitoring: Potential Applications from Diabetes Management. Malaysian Journal of Medicine and Health Sciences, July 2025. http://mjmhsojs.upm.edu.my/index.php/mjmhs/article/view/1303

[3] Japar KV. What the 2026 EASD Guideline Reveals About Living With a Glucose Sensor. A1C Almanac, 31 July 2026. https://almanac.a1c.io/2026/07/31/what-the-2026-easd-guideline-reveals-about-living-with-a-glucose-sensor/ — reviewing Davies MJ, Adler AI, Liakos A, et al. 2026 EASD guideline on the use of continuous glucose monitoring for the management of type 2 diabetes. Düsseldorf: European Association for the Study of Diabetes; 2026.

[4] Epidemiological features and prevalence patterns of prediabetes outcomes in an east coast Malaysian cohort: a retrospective cohort study. PMC, 2025. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12907689/

[5] The Star. QuickCheck: Can eating too much white rice increase your risk of Type 2 diabetes? 3 March 2026. https://www.thestar.com.my/news/true-or-not/2026/03/03/quickcheck-can-eating-too-much-white-rice-increase-your-risk-of-type-2-diabetes

[6] Silent Diabetes: Key Risk Factors Among the Low Income Population of Langkawi Island, Kedah, Malaysia (2022 to 2023). PMC, 2024. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11471450/

[7] CodeBlue. Over Two Million Adults In Malaysia Live With Three NCDs: NHMS 2023. May 2024. https://codeblue.galencentre.org/2024/05/over-two-million-adults-in-malaysia-live-with-three-ncds-nhms-2023/

[8] Prevalence of type 2 diabetes and prediabetes in Malaysia: a systematic review and meta analysis. PMC, 2022. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8794132/

[9] Bhavadharini B, et al. White Rice Intake and Incident Diabetes: A Study of 132,373 Participants in 21 Countries. Diabetes Care, November 2020. https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/43/11/2643/35780/White-Rice-Intake-and-Incident-Diabetes-A-Study-of

[10] Mohamad NF, Abdullah Sani AF, Ahmad Nizam NA, Foo SS, Mohamed Ghazali IM, Sarimin R. Patient perspectives on continuous glucose monitoring system (CGMS) for diabetes in Malaysia. Malaysian Health Technology Assessment Section, Ministry of Health Malaysia. PMC, February 2025. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11894388/

[11] Same study, published version. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, Cambridge University Press, 6 February 2025. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-technology-assessment-in-health-care/article/patient-perspectives-on-continuous-glucose-monitoring-system-cgms-for-diabetes-in-malaysia-a-vital-voice-in-health-technology-assessment-hta-informing-decisionmaking/26611679DE1EB4CF8ACD96A1409A3B98

[12] Trends of diabetes and pre diabetes in Indonesia 2013 to 2023: a serial analysis of national health surveys. PMC, October 2025. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12519354/

[13] Muharram FR, Siregar RA, Zulfikar MQB, Nur A, Widyahening IS, Danaei G. Progress and Inequality in Diabetes Care Cascade in Indonesia: A National Health Survey Analysis (2013 to 2023). medRxiv preprint, 31 July 2026. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.07.29.26359228v1.full

[14] Sociodemographic and Lifestyle Factors Associated with Undiagnosed Diabetes in Indonesia: Findings from Riskesdas 2018. Journal of the ASEAN Federation of Endocrine Societies, April 2025. https://asean-endocrinejournal.org/index.php/JAFES/article/view/3721

[15] Muharram FR, Swannjo JB, Tahapary DL, Nasution SA, Oceandy D. Diabetes care performance in Indonesia: a serial cross sectional analysis of behavioral, clinical, and laboratory outcomes from 2013 to 2023. The Lancet Regional Health, Western Pacific, December 2025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanwpc.2025.101759

[16] Purbowati P, Kumalasari I. Glycemic Index of Rice by Several Processing Methods. Amerta Nutrition, Universitas Airlangga. https://e-journal.unair.ac.id/AMNT/article/download/37018/24968/218709

[17] Pemanfaatan Continuous Glucose Monitoring untuk Mengoptimalkan Manajemen Diabetes dan Kualitas Hidup Pasien: Systematic Literature Review. Universitas Pahlawan, 2025. https://journal.universitaspahlawan.ac.id/index.php/jkt/article/download/43903/29263

[18] Japar KV. Why Healthy Endurance Athletes Keep Testing Prediabetic. A1C Almanac, 8 June 2026. https://almanac.a1c.io/2026/06/08/why-healthy-endurance-athletes-keep-testing-prediabetic/ — drawing on Cohen RM, et al. Blood 2008;112(10):4284–91; Flockhart M, et al. Acta Physiol 2023;238(4):e13972; and Bowler AL, et al. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2025, doi:10.1177/19322968241250355.

[19] Japar KV. The Story One Blood Test Could Never Tell. A1C Almanac, 3 June 2026. https://almanac.a1c.io/2026/06/03/the-story-one-blood-test-could-never-tell/