ArticleJournal of diabetes science and technology2017
Retrospective Analysis of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Data With the Surveillance Error Grid Supports Nonadjunctive Dosing Decisions.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Stability, Accuracy, and Risk Assessment of a Novel Subcutaneous Glucose Sensor.Diabetes technology & therapeutics · 2017Trial
- Comparison of venous, capillary and interstitial blood glucose data measured during hyperbaric oxygen treatment from patients with diabetes mellitus.Diving and hyperbaric medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe objective was to assess clinical risks of inaccurate continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system readings as estimated by the surveillance error grid (SEG).
methodsValues from Dexcom G4 Platinum system with an advanced algorithm (Software 505) were plotted on the SEG with temporally matched reference venous (YSI) values collected during clinic visits on days 1, 4, and 7 of sensor wear. Data from a pediatric study (N = 79, age [mean ± SD] 12.2 ± 4.6 years, all with type 1 diabetes) and an adult study (N = 51, age 46.7 ± 15.8 years, 44 with type 1 diabetes and 7 with type 2 diabetes) were used.
resultsPediatric data included 2262 paired points, of which 1990 (88.0%) were in the "no risk" zone. Adult data included 2263 paired points, of which 2056 (90.9%) were in the "no risk" zone. Performance was best on Day 4, when 92.7% and 93.3% of points from the pediatric and adult studies, respectively, were in the "no risk" zone. Nine of the 4525 points (<0.2%) from 5 different sensors were in zones representing moderate risk, and none were in zones representing great or extreme risk.
conclusionsSEG analysis suggests that in pediatric and adult subjects with diabetes, using CGM values for diabetes management poses minimal risk to the user. CGM users also benefit from glucose trends and alerts.
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.