Cargando…
A Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Three Continuous Glucose Monitors
OBJECTIVE: To compare three continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices in subjects with type 1 diabetes under closed-loop blood glucose (BG) control. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Six subjects with type 1 diabetes (age 52 ± 14 years, diabetes duration 32 ± 14 years) each participated in two 51-h clo...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
American Diabetes Association
2013
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3554299/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23275350 http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/dc12-0070 |
_version_ | 1782256870755401728 |
---|---|
author | Damiano, Edward R. El-Khatib, Firas H. Zheng, Hui Nathan, David M. Russell, Steven J. |
author_facet | Damiano, Edward R. El-Khatib, Firas H. Zheng, Hui Nathan, David M. Russell, Steven J. |
author_sort | Damiano, Edward R. |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: To compare three continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices in subjects with type 1 diabetes under closed-loop blood glucose (BG) control. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Six subjects with type 1 diabetes (age 52 ± 14 years, diabetes duration 32 ± 14 years) each participated in two 51-h closed-loop BG control experiments in the hospital. Venous plasma glucose (PG) measurements (GlucoScout, International Biomedical) obtained every 15 min (2,360 values) were paired in time with corresponding CGM glucose (CGMG) measurements obtained from three CGM devices, the Navigator (Abbott Diabetes Care), the Seven Plus (DexCom), and the Guardian (Medtronic), worn simultaneously by each subject. Errors in paired PG–CGMG measurements and data reporting percentages were obtained for each CGM device. RESULTS: The Navigator had the best overall accuracy, with an aggregate mean absolute relative difference (MARD) of all paired points of 11.8 ± 11.1% and an average MARD across all 12 experiments of 11.8 ± 3.8%. The Seven Plus and Guardian produced aggregate MARDs of all paired points of 16.5 ± 17.8% and 20.3 ± 18.0%, respectively, and average MARDs across all 12 experiments of 16.5 ± 6.7% and 20.2 ± 6.8%, respectively. Data reporting percentages, a measure of reliability, were 76% for the Seven Plus and nearly 100% for the Navigator and Guardian. CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive head-to-head-to-head comparison of three CGM devices for BG values from 36 to 563 mg/dL revealed marked differences in performance characteristics that include accuracy, precision, and reliability. The Navigator outperformed the other two in these areas. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3554299 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2013 |
publisher | American Diabetes Association |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-35542992014-02-01 A Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Three Continuous Glucose Monitors Damiano, Edward R. El-Khatib, Firas H. Zheng, Hui Nathan, David M. Russell, Steven J. Diabetes Care Original Research OBJECTIVE: To compare three continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices in subjects with type 1 diabetes under closed-loop blood glucose (BG) control. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Six subjects with type 1 diabetes (age 52 ± 14 years, diabetes duration 32 ± 14 years) each participated in two 51-h closed-loop BG control experiments in the hospital. Venous plasma glucose (PG) measurements (GlucoScout, International Biomedical) obtained every 15 min (2,360 values) were paired in time with corresponding CGM glucose (CGMG) measurements obtained from three CGM devices, the Navigator (Abbott Diabetes Care), the Seven Plus (DexCom), and the Guardian (Medtronic), worn simultaneously by each subject. Errors in paired PG–CGMG measurements and data reporting percentages were obtained for each CGM device. RESULTS: The Navigator had the best overall accuracy, with an aggregate mean absolute relative difference (MARD) of all paired points of 11.8 ± 11.1% and an average MARD across all 12 experiments of 11.8 ± 3.8%. The Seven Plus and Guardian produced aggregate MARDs of all paired points of 16.5 ± 17.8% and 20.3 ± 18.0%, respectively, and average MARDs across all 12 experiments of 16.5 ± 6.7% and 20.2 ± 6.8%, respectively. Data reporting percentages, a measure of reliability, were 76% for the Seven Plus and nearly 100% for the Navigator and Guardian. CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive head-to-head-to-head comparison of three CGM devices for BG values from 36 to 563 mg/dL revealed marked differences in performance characteristics that include accuracy, precision, and reliability. The Navigator outperformed the other two in these areas. American Diabetes Association 2013-02 2013-01-17 /pmc/articles/PMC3554299/ /pubmed/23275350 http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/dc12-0070 Text en © 2013 by the American Diabetes Association. Readers may use this article as long as the work is properly cited, the use is educational and not for profit, and the work is not altered. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ for details. |
spellingShingle | Original Research Damiano, Edward R. El-Khatib, Firas H. Zheng, Hui Nathan, David M. Russell, Steven J. A Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Three Continuous Glucose Monitors |
title | A Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Three Continuous Glucose Monitors |
title_full | A Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Three Continuous Glucose Monitors |
title_fullStr | A Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Three Continuous Glucose Monitors |
title_full_unstemmed | A Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Three Continuous Glucose Monitors |
title_short | A Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Three Continuous Glucose Monitors |
title_sort | comparative effectiveness analysis of three continuous glucose monitors |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3554299/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23275350 http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/dc12-0070 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT damianoedwardr acomparativeeffectivenessanalysisofthreecontinuousglucosemonitors AT elkhatibfirash acomparativeeffectivenessanalysisofthreecontinuousglucosemonitors AT zhenghui acomparativeeffectivenessanalysisofthreecontinuousglucosemonitors AT nathandavidm acomparativeeffectivenessanalysisofthreecontinuousglucosemonitors AT russellstevenj acomparativeeffectivenessanalysisofthreecontinuousglucosemonitors AT damianoedwardr comparativeeffectivenessanalysisofthreecontinuousglucosemonitors AT elkhatibfirash comparativeeffectivenessanalysisofthreecontinuousglucosemonitors AT zhenghui comparativeeffectivenessanalysisofthreecontinuousglucosemonitors AT nathandavidm comparativeeffectivenessanalysisofthreecontinuousglucosemonitors AT russellstevenj comparativeeffectivenessanalysisofthreecontinuousglucosemonitors |