ArticleJournal of diabetes science and technology2021
Comparative Accuracy Analysis of a Real-time and an Intermittent-Scanning Continuous Glucose Monitoring System.
Article in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Performance of Dexcom G5 and FreeStyle Libre sensors tested simultaneously in people with type 1 or 2 diabetes and advanced chronic kidney disease.World journal of clinical cases · 2022Trial
- Trial
- POC Sensor Systems and Artificial Intelligence-Where We Are Now and Where We Are Going?Biosensors · 2025Review
- Noninvasive Continuous Glucose Monitoring Using Multimodal Near-Infrared, Temperature, and Pressure Signals on the Earlobe.Biosensors · 2025Article
- Automating insulin delivery through pump and continuous glucose monitoring connectivity: Maximizing opportunities to improve outcomes.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2024Review
- 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
- Accuracy of a novel real-time continuous glucose monitoring system: a prospective self-controlled study in thirty hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2024Article
- Testing the Real-World Accuracy of the Dexcom G6 Pro CGM During the Insulin-Only Bionic Pancreas Pivotal Trial.Diabetes technology & therapeutics · 2023Article
- Clinical Performance Evaluation of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems: A Scoping Review and Recommendations for Reporting.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2023Article
- Latest Advancements in Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Technologies in Treating Type 1 Diabetes.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCurrently, two different types of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems are available: real time (rt) CGM systems that continuously provide glucose values and intermittent-scanning (is) CGM systems. This study compared accuracy of an rtCGM and an isCGM system when worn in parallel.
methodsDexcom G5 Mobile (DG5) and FreeStyle Libre (FL) were worn in parallel by 27 subjects for 14 days including two clinic sessions with induced glucose excursions. The percentage of CGM values within ±20% or ±20 mg/dL of the laboratory comparison method results (YSI 2300 STAT Plus, YSI Inc., Yellow Springs, OH, United States; glucose oxidase based) or blood glucose meter values and mean absolute relative difference (MARD) were calculated. Consensus error grid and continuous glucose error grid analyses were performed to assess clinical accuracy.
resultsBoth systems displayed clinically accurate readings. Compared to laboratory comparison method results during clinic sessions, DG5 had 91.5% of values within ±20%/20 mg/dL and a MARD of 9.5%; FL had 82.5% of scanned values within ±20%/20 mg/dL and an MARD of 13.6%. Both systems showed a lower level of performance during the home phase and when using the blood glucose meter as reference.
conclusionThe two systems tested in this study represent two different principles of CGM. DG5 generally provided higher accordance with laboratory comparison method results than FL.
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.