Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28563974›Full record

Trial reportJournal of diabetes investigation2018

Performance of a new real-time continuous glucose monitoring system: A multicenter pilot study.

Jian Zhou, Shuo Zhang, Liang Li, Yufei Wang, Wei Lu, Chunjun Sheng, Yiming Li, Yuqian Bao, Weiping Jia

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of diabetes investigation, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

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

  1. Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. 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

9 authors.

Jian ZhouDepartment of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Shanghai Jiao Tong University Affiliated Sixth People's Hospital, Shanghai, China.
Shuo ZhangDepartment of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Huashan Hospital, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Liang LiDepartment of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.
Yufei WangDepartment of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Shanghai Jiao Tong University Affiliated Sixth People's Hospital, Shanghai, China.
Wei LuDepartment of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Shanghai Jiao Tong University Affiliated Sixth People's Hospital, Shanghai, China.
Chunjun ShengDepartment of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.
Yiming LiDepartment of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Huashan Hospital, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Yuqian BaoDepartment of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Shanghai Jiao Tong University Affiliated Sixth People's Hospital, Shanghai, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4754-3470
Weiping JiaDepartment of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Shanghai Jiao Tong University Affiliated Sixth People's Hospital, Shanghai, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6244-2168

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

AIMS/

introductionThe present study aimed to investigate the performance of a new real-time continuous glucose monitoring system. MATERIALS AND

methodsInterstitial glucose levels were monitored for 7 days in 63 patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes using the Medtrum A6 TouchCare

resultsAmong 1,678 paired sensor-reference values, 90.5% (95% confidence interval 89.1-91.9%) were within ±20%/20 mg/dL of the reference values, with a mean absolute relative difference of 9.1 ± 8.7% (95% CI: 8.9-9.2%). The percentages of paired sensor-reference values falling within zone A and B of the Clarke error grid analysis (EGA) and the type 1 diabetes consensus EGA were 99.1 and 99.8%. Continuous EGA showed that the percentages of accurate readings, benign errors, and erroneous readings were 89.9, 6.3 and 3.8%, respectively. Surveillance EGA showed that 90.6, 9.2, and 0.2% of sensor-reference values with no, slight and lower moderate risk, respectively. The mean absolute relative difference was 16.6, and 96.0% of the sensor values fell within zones A and B of the consensus EGA for hypoglycemia. More than 85% of sensor values were within ±20%/20 mg/dL of reference values, the mean absolute relative difference was <11, and >99.5% of the sensor values fell in zones A and B of the consensus EGA.

conclusionsThe Medtrum real-time continuous glucose monitoring system was numerically and clinically accurate over a large glucose range across 7 days of wear.

Indexed as

AdultAgedBlood Glucose Self-MonitoringDiabetes Mellitus, Type 1Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2FemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMonitoring, AmbulatoryPilot ProjectsProspective StudiesReference ValuesReproducibility of ResultsYoung AdultAccuracyContinuous glucose monitoringError grid analysis

Identifiers

PMID28563974
PMCPMC5835467

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.