Trial reportJournal of diabetes science and technology2013
Performance evaluation of three continuous glucose monitoring systems: comparison of six sensors per subject in parallel.
Trial report in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
36 citing papers in PubMed.
- Performance of a new real-time continuous glucose monitoring system: A multicenter pilot study.Journal of diabetes investigation · 2018Trial
- Redundancy in Glucose Sensing: Enhanced Accuracy and Reliability of an Electrochemical Redundant Sensor for Continuous Glucose Monitoring.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2016Trial
- Accuracy of Continuous Glucose Monitoring During Three Closed-Loop Home Studies Under Free-Living Conditions.Diabetes technology & therapeutics · 2015Trial
- Use of microdialysis-based continuous glucose monitoring to drive real-time semi-closed-loop insulin infusion.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2014Trial
- Effect of local heating on postprandial blood glucose excursions using the InsuPad device: results of an outpatient crossover study.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2014Trial
- The impact of continuous glucose monitoring on low interstitial glucose values and low blood glucose values assessed by point-of-care blood glucose meters: results of a crossover trial.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2014Trial
- Performance evaluation of a continuous glucose monitoring system under conditions similar to daily life.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2013Trial
- Evaluation of the performance of a novel system for continuous glucose monitoring.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2013Trial
- Analytical Performance of the FreeStyle Libre 2 Glucose Sensor in Healthy Male Adults.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Clinical Performance Evaluation of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems: A Scoping Review and Recommendations for Reporting.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2023Article
- Mixed Meal Tolerance Test Versus Continuous Glucose Monitoring for an Effective Diagnosis of Persistent Post-Bariatric Hypoglycemia.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Comparison of the clinical effects of intermittently scanned and real-time continuous glucose monitoring in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes: A retrospective cohort study.Journal of diabetes investigation · 2022Article
- Validity of continuous glucose monitoring for categorizing glycemic responses to diet: implications for use in personalized nutrition.The American journal of clinical nutrition · 2022Article
- Glucose Concentrations from Continuous Glucose Monitoring Devices Compared to Those from Blood Plasma during an Oral Glucose Tolerance Test in Healthy Young Adults.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Tracking metabolic responses based on macronutrient consumption: A comprehensive study to continuously monitor and quantify dual markers (cortisol and glucose) in human sweat using WATCH sensor.Bioengineering & translational medicine · 2021Article
- Benefits and Limitations of MARD as a Performance Parameter for Continuous Glucose Monitoring in the Interstitial Space.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2020Article
- Performance and Usability of Three Systems for Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Direct Comparison.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2019Article
- Measures of Accuracy for Continuous Glucose Monitoring and Blood Glucose Monitoring Devices.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2019Review
- Seven-Year Clinical Surveillance Program Demonstrates Consistent MARD Accuracy Performance of a Blood Glucose Test Strip.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2018Article
- Modeling of Diabetes and Its Clinical Impact.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study is aimed at comparing the performance of three continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems following the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute's POCT05-A guideline, which provides recommendations for performance evaluation of CGM systems.
methodsA total of 12 subjects with type 1 diabetes were enrolled in this study. Each subject wore six CGM systems in parallel, two sensors of each CGM system [FreeStyle Navigator™ (Navigator), MiniMed Guardian® REAL-Time with Enlite sensor (Guardian), DexCom™ Seven® Plus 3rd generation (Seven Plus)]. Each sensor was used for the lifetime specified by the manufacturer. To follow POCT05-A recommendations, glucose excursions were induced on two separate occasions, and venous and capillary blood glucose (BG) concentrations were obtained every 15 min for five consecutive hours. Capillary BG concentrations were measured at least once per hour during the day and once at night. Parameters investigated were CGM-to-BG differences [mean absolute relative difference (MARD)] and sensor-to-sensor differences [precision absolute relative difference (PARD)].
resultsCompared with capillary BG reference readings, the Navigator showed the lowest MARD, with 12.1% overall and 24.6% in the hypoglycemic range; for the Guardian and the Seven Plus, MARD was 16.2%/34.9% and 16.3%/32.7%, respectively. PARD also was lowest for the Navigator (9.6%/9.8%), followed by the Seven Plus (16.7%/25.5%) and the Guardian (18.1%/20.2%). During induced glucose excursions, MARD between CGM and BG was, again, lowest for the Navigator (14.3%), followed by the Seven Plus (15.8%) and the Guardian (19.2%).
conclusionsIn this study, two sensors of each of the three CGM systems were compared in a setting following POCT05-A recommendations. The Navigator CGM system achieved more accurate results than the Guardian or the Seven Plus with respect to MARD and PARD. Performance in the hypoglycemic range was markedly worse for all CGM systems when compared with BG results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.