Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37758681›Full record

ArticleJournal of diabetes science and technology2024

Performance Assessment of Three Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes.

Julia Kölle, Manuel Eichenlaub, Jochen Mende, Manuela Link, Beatrice Vetter, Elvis Safary, Stefan Pleus, Cornelia Haug, Guido Freckmann

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Julia KölleInstitut für Diabetes-Technologie, Forschungs- und Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH an der Universität Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
Manuel EichenlaubInstitut für Diabetes-Technologie, Forschungs- und Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH an der Universität Ulm, Ulm, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2150-3160
Jochen MendeInstitut für Diabetes-Technologie, Forschungs- und Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH an der Universität Ulm, Ulm, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-8667-760X
Manuela LinkInstitut für Diabetes-Technologie, Forschungs- und Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH an der Universität Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
Beatrice VetterFIND, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-7898-472X
Elvis SafaryFIND, Geneva, Switzerland.
Stefan PleusInstitut für Diabetes-Technologie, Forschungs- und Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH an der Universität Ulm, Ulm, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4629-7754
Cornelia HaugInstitut für Diabetes-Technologie, Forschungs- und Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH an der Universität Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
Guido FreckmannInstitut für Diabetes-Technologie, Forschungs- und Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH an der Universität Ulm, Ulm, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0406-9529
Universität Ulm · DEFIND · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFIND, the global alliance for diagnostics, identified the nonmarket-approved continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system, FiberSense system (FBS), as a potential device for use in low- and middle-income countries. Together with two market-approved, factory-calibrated CGM systems, namely, the FreeStyle Libre 2 (FL2) and the GlucoRx AiDEX (ADX), the FBS was subjected to a clinical performance evaluation.

methodsThirty adult participants with type 1 diabetes were enrolled. The study was mainly conducted at home, with three in-clinic sessions conducted over the study period of 28 days. Comparator measurements were collected from capillary samples, using a high-quality blood glucose monitoring system.

resultsData from 31, 70, and 78 sensors of FBS, FL2, and ADX, respectively, were included in the performance analysis. The mean absolute relative differences between CGM and comparator data for FBS, FL2, and ADX were 14.7%, 9.2%, and 21.9%, and relative biases were -2.1%, -2.5%, and -18.5%, respectively. Analysis of individual sensor accuracy revealed low, moderate, and high sensor-to-sensor variability for FBS, FL2, and ADX, respectively. Sensor survival probabilities until the end of sensor life were 47.2% for FBS (28 days), 71.3% for FL2 (14 days), and 48.4% for ADX (14 days).

conclusionsThe results of FBS were encouraging enough to conduct further performance and usability evaluations in a low- and middle-income country. The results of FL2 mainly agreed with existing studies, whereas ADX showed substantial deviations from previously reported results.

Indexed as

Blood GlucoseBlood Glucose Self-MonitoringDiabetes Mellitus, Type 1AdultContinuous Glucose MonitoringFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsYoung AdultBlood GlucoseaccuracyCG-DIVAcontinuous glucose monitoringlow- and middle-income countriesmean absolute relative difference

Identifiers

PMID37758681
PMCPMC11529083
OpenAlexW4321497539

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.