ArticleJournal of diabetes science and technology2019
Performance and Usability of Three Systems for Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Direct Comparison.
Article in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accuracy of a Seventh-Generation Continuous Glucose Monitoring System in Children and Adolescents With Type 1 Diabetes.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2023Trial
- The 'flash' adhesive study: a randomized crossover trial using an additional adhesive patch to prolong freestyle libre sensor life among youth with type 1 diabetes mellitus.Acta diabetologica · 2020Trial
- Analysis of Adverse Events in Medical Devices for Diabetes.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2025Article
- Glycemic Variability and Control by CGM in Healthy Older and Young Adults and Their Relationship With Diet.Journal of the Endocrine Society · 2025Article
- Towards Standardization of CGM Performance Studies: The QUSS-CGM Questionnaire for Assessing User Satisfaction.Patient related outcome measures · 2025Article
- Exploring usability metrics in continuous glucose monitoring systems: insights from the voice of people with diabetes in Italy.Frontiers in clinical diabetes and healthcare · 2025Article
- A Critical Discussion of Alert Evaluations in the Context of Continuous Glucose Monitoring System Performance.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2024Review
- Unveiling the interplay between rational, psychological and functional factors in continuous glucose monitoring early adoption: Novel evidence from the Dexcom ONE case in Italy.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Head-to-Head Evaluation of Continuous Glucose Monitoring and Automated Insulin Delivery Systems: Why are They not Used More Systematically?Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2024Article
- Comparison of Point Accuracy Between Two Widely Used Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2024Article
- Clinical Performance Evaluation of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems: A Scoping Review and Recommendations for Reporting.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2023Article
- What, why and how to monitor blood glucose in critically ill patients.World journal of diabetes · 2023Review
- Continuous glucose monitoring for automatic real-time assessment of eating events and nutrition: a scoping review.Frontiers in nutrition · 2023Article
- Accuracy and Safety of Dexcom G7 Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Adults with Diabetes.Diabetes technology & therapeutics · 2022Article
- Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Healthy Adults-Possible Applications in Health Care, Wellness, and Sports.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Pros and cons of continuous glucose monitoring in the intensive care unit.World journal of clinical cases · 2021Review
- Time in Specific Glucose Ranges, Glucose Management Indicator, and Glycemic Variability: Impact of Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) System Model and Sensor on CGM Metrics.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2021Article
- Digital Health Services among Patients with Diabetes during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Scoping Review.Indian journal of endocrinology and metabolismArticle
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo be able to compare continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems, they have to be worn in parallel by the same subjects. This study evaluated the performance and usability of three different CGM systems in direct comparison.
methodIn this open, prospective study at two sites, 54 patients with diabetes wore three CGM systems each (Dexcom G5™ Mobile CGM system [DG5], Guardian™ Connect system [GC], and a Roche CGM system [RCGM]) in parallel for 6 or 7 days in a mixed inpatient and outpatient setting. Capillary comparison measurements were performed using a self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) system. During study site visits, glucose excursions were induced. Performance of the systems was evaluated by calculating mean absolute relative differences (MARD, calculated as absolute differences for glucose concentrations <100 mg/dL and as relative differences for glucose concentrations ≥100 mg/dL), and mean relative differences (MRD, bias) between CGM and SMBG results. In addition, usability of the systems was assessed.
resultsOverall MARD was 10.1 ± 2.1 for DG5, 11.5 ± 4.2 for GC, and 11.9 ± 5.6 for RCGM. Performance improved in all systems after the first day of use. All systems showed >99% of values within zones A and B of the consensus error grid. Overall, all CGM systems showed a small negative bias compared to SMBG. Usability of the systems differed regarding patch adhesion rate, failure rate, and patient rating. Most patients preferred GC, but in general all systems were rated positively.
conclusionAll three CGM systems showed similar overall accuracy in this direct comparison, but small differences were observed with regard to specific glucose ranges and usability aspects.
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.