Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25852074›Full record

ArticleJournal of diabetes science and technology2015

Rate-of-Change Dependence of the Performance of Two CGM Systems During Induced Glucose Swings.

Stefan Pleus, Michael Schoemaker, Karin Morgenstern, Günther Schmelzeisen-Redeker, Cornelia Haug, Manuela Link, Eva Zschornack, Guido Freckmann

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

44 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Stefan PleusInstitut für Diabetes-Technologie Forschungs- und Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH an der Universität Ulm, Ulm, Germany stefan.pleus@uni-ulm.de.
Michael SchoemakerRoche Diagnostics GmbH, Mannheim, Germany.
Karin MorgensternRoche Diagnostics GmbH, Mannheim, Germany.
Günther Schmelzeisen-RedekerRoche Diagnostics GmbH, Mannheim, Germany.
Cornelia HaugInstitut für Diabetes-Technologie Forschungs- und Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH an der Universität Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
Manuela LinkInstitut für Diabetes-Technologie Forschungs- und Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH an der Universität Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
Eva ZschornackInstitut für Diabetes-Technologie Forschungs- und Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH an der Universität Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
Guido FreckmannInstitut für Diabetes-Technologie Forschungs- und Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH an der Universität Ulm, Ulm, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe accuracy of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems is often assessed with respect to blood glucose (BG) readings. CGM readings are affected by a physiological and a technical time delay when compared to BG readings. In this analysis, the dependence of CGM performance parameters on the BG rate of change was investigated for 2 CGM systems.

methodsData from a previously published study were retrospectively analyzed. An established CGM system (Dexcom G4, Dexcom, San Diego, CA; system A) and a prototype system (Roche Diagnostics GmbH, Mannheim, Germany; system B) with 2 sensors each were worn by 10 subjects in parallel. Glucose swings were induced to achieve rapidly changing BG concentrations. Mean absolute relative differences (MARD) were calculated in different BG rate-of-change categories. In addition, sensor-to-sensor precision was assessed.

resultsAt BG rates of change of -1 mg/dl/min to 0 mg/dl/min and 0 mg/dl/min to +1 mg/dl/min, MARD results were 12.6% and 11.3% for system A and 8.2% and 10.0% for system B. At rapidly changing BG concentrations (<-3 mg/dl/min and ≥+3 mg/dl/min), higher MARD results were found for both systems, but system B was less affected (system A: 24.9% and 29.6%, system B: 10.6% and 16.3%). The impact of rate of change on sensor-to-sensor precision was less pronounced.

conclusionsBoth systems were affected by rapidly changing BG concentrations to some degree, although system B was mostly unaffected by decreasing BG concentrations. It would seem that technological advancements in CGM systems might allow for a more precise tracking of BG concentrations even at rapidly changing BG concentrations.

Indexed as

AdultAlgorithmsBlood GlucoseBlood Glucose Self-MonitoringCalibrationDiabetes MellitusEquipment DesignFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMonitoring, PhysiologicReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesSignal Processing, Computer-AssistedYoung AdultBlood Glucoseaccuracycontinuous glucose monitoringMARDPARDrate of change

Identifiers

PMID25852074
PMCPMC4525645

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.