ReviewJournal of diabetes science and technology2024
A Proposal for the Clinical Characterization of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Trend Arrow Accuracy.
Review 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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Evaluating Insulin Delivery Systems Using Dynamic Glucose Region Plots and Risk Space Analysis.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Long-Term Performance of Two Systems for Automated Insulin Delivery in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: An Observational Study.Endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism · 2025Observational
- The Diabetes Technology Society Error Grid and Trend Accuracy Matrix for Glucose Monitors.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2024Article
- A Critical Discussion of Alert Evaluations in the Context of Continuous Glucose Monitoring System Performance.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2024Review
- Time With Rapid Change of Glucose.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2024Article
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
The assessment and characterization of trend accuracy, that is, the ability of a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system to correctly indicate the direction and rate of change (RoC) of glucose levels, has received comparatively little attention in the overall evaluation of CGM performance. As such, only few approaches that examine the trend accuracy have been put forward. In this article, we review existing approaches and propose the clinical trend concurrence analysis (CTCA) which is an adaptation of the conventional trend concurrence analysis. The CTCA is intended to directly evaluate the trend arrows displayed by the CGM systems by characterizing their agreement to suitably categorized comparator RoCs. Here, we call on manufactures of CGM systems to provide the displayed trend arrows for retrospective analysis. The CTCA classifies any deviations between the CGM trend and comparator RoC according to their risk for an adverse clinical event arising from a possibly erroneous treatment decision. For that, the existing rate error grid analysis and a specific set of trend arrow-based insulin dosing recommendations were used. The results of the CTCA are presented in an accessible graphical display and exemplified on data from three CGM systems. With this article, we hope to increase the awareness for the importance and challenges of assessing the accuracy of trend information displayed by CGM systems.
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.