Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27566735›Full record

ArticleJournal of diabetes science and technology2017

Significance and Reliability of MARD for the Accuracy of CGM Systems.

Florian Reiterer, Philipp Polterauer, Michael Schoemaker, Guenther Schmelzeisen-Redecker, Guido Freckmann, Lutz Heinemann, Luigi Del Re

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 63 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
63citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

63 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Optimizing Continuous Glucose Monitoring Adoption in India: From Current Challenges to Future Solutions.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Continuous glucose monitoring in neonates: challenges and opportunities.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

3 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

7 authors.

Florian Reiterer1 Institute for Design and Control of Mechatronical Systems, Johannes Kepler University, Linz, Austria.
Philipp Polterauer1 Institute for Design and Control of Mechatronical Systems, Johannes Kepler University, Linz, Austria.
Michael Schoemaker2 Roche Diabetes Care Deutschland GmbH, Mannheim, Germany.
Guenther Schmelzeisen-Redecker2 Roche Diabetes Care Deutschland GmbH, Mannheim, Germany.
Guido Freckmann3 Institute for Diabetes-Technology GmbH, at Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.
Lutz Heinemann4 Science & Co, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Luigi Del Re1 Institute for Design and Control of Mechatronical Systems, Johannes Kepler University, Linz, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is a need to assess the accuracy of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems for several uses. Mean absolute relative difference (MARD) is the measure of choice for this. Unfortunately, it is frequently overlooked that MARD values computed with data acquired during clinical studies do not reflect the accuracy of the CGM system only, but are strongly influenced by the design of the study. Thus, published MARD values must be understood not as precise values but as indications with some uncertainty. DATA AND

methodsData from a recent clinical trial, Monte Carlo simulations, and assumptions about the error distribution of the reference measurements have been used to determine the confidence region of MARD as a function of the number and the accuracy of the reference measurements.

resultsThe uncertainty of the computed MARD values can be quantified by a newly introduced MARD reliability index (MRI), which independently mirrors the reliability of the evaluation. Thus MARD conveys information on the accuracy of the CGM system, while MRI conveys information on the uncertainty of the computed MARD values.

conclusionsMARD values from clinical studies should not be used blindly but the reliability of the evaluation should be considered as well. Furthermore, it should not be ignored that MARD does not take into account the key feature of CGM sensors, the frequency of the measurements. Additional metrics, such as precision absolute relative difference (PARD) should be used as well to obtain a better evaluation of the CGM performance for specific uses, for example, for artificial pancreas.

Indexed as

Blood GlucoseBlood Glucose Self-MonitoringDiabetes Mellitus, Type 1HumansReference ValuesBlood Glucoseblood glucosecontinuous glucose monitoringdiabetes therapyglucose measurementquality of measurement

Identifiers

PMID27566735
PMCPMC5375072

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.