Evidence mapPaperPMID 39669532Full record

ReviewTherapeutic advances in endocrinology and metabolism2024

Evaluating the precision and reliability of real-time continuous glucose monitoring systems in ambulatory settings: a systematic review.

Valentina Dávila-Ruales, Laura F Gilón, Ana M Gómez, Oscar M Muñoz, María N Serrano, Diana C Henao

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Therapeutic advances in endocrinology and metabolism, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

6 authors.

Valentina Dávila-RualesDepartment of Internal Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Hospital Universitario San Ignacio, Carrera 7 # 40-62, Chapinero, Bogotá 110231, Colombia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6563-2939
Laura F GilónDepartment of Internal Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Hospital Universitario San Ignacio, Bogotá, Colombia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8089-1987
Ana M GómezDepartment of Internal Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Hospital Universitario San Ignacio, Bogotá, Colombia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8907-3470
Oscar M MuñozDepartment of Internal Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Hospital Universitario San Ignacio, Bogotá, Colombia.
María N SerranoDepartment of Internal Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Hospital Universitario San Ignacio, Bogotá, Colombia.
Diana C HenaoDepartment of Internal Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Hospital Universitario San Ignacio, Bogotá, Colombia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) with minimally invasive devices plays a key role in the assessment of daily diabetes management by detecting and alerting to potentially dangerous trends in glucose levels, improving quality of life, and treatment adherence. However, there is still uncertainty as to whether CGMs are accurate enough to replace self-monitoring of blood glucose, especially in detecting episodes of hypoglycemia. Objectives: Evaluate clinical, numerical accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of the CGM devices commercially available when compared to the reference standard of arterial or venous blood glucose. Data sources and methods: We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, and LILACS databases. The quality was assessed with the Quality Assessment Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. Clinical and numerical accuracy data were extracted. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated using Review Manager software. Heterogeneity was assessed by visual examination of forest plot and summary receiver operating characteristic curves. Results: Twenty-two studies with a total of 2294 patients were included. The average mean absolute relative difference for overall diagnostic accuracy was 9.4%. None of the devices evaluated with ISO 15197:2013 criteria achieved values ⩾95% of measurements in the stipulated ranges in hypoglycemia (±15 mg/dL), but two devices did achieve it in hyperglycemia (±15%; Dexcom G6 and G7). Most of the devices evaluated with consensus error grids reached values above 99% in zones A and B only in overall accuracy and hyperglycemia. For hypoglycemia, the average sensitivity was 85.7% and specificity 95.33%, and for hyperglycemia was 97.45% and 96% respectively. Conclusion: Currently available CGM devices have adequate accuracy for euglycemia and hyperglycemia; however, it is still inadequate for hypoglycemia, although it has improved over time. Trial registration: Prospero registration ID CRD42023399767.

Indexed as

accuracycontinuous glucose monitoringdiabetes mellitussensitivitysensorspecificity

Identifiers

PMID39669532
PMCPMC11635893

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.