Literature DB >> 20388046

Comparison of the clinical information provided by the FreeStyle Navigator continuous interstitial glucose monitor versus traditional blood glucose readings.

Geoffrey V McGarraugh1, William L Clarke, Boris P Kovatchev.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the analysis was to compare the clinical utility of data from traditional self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) to that of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM).
METHODS: A clinical study of the clinical accuracy of the FreeStyle Navigator CGM System (Abbott Diabetes Care, Alameda, CA), which includes SMBG capabilities, was conducted by comparison to the YSI blood glucose analyzer (YSI Inc., Yellow Springs, OH) using 58 subjects with type 1 diabetes. The Continuous Glucose-Error Grid Analysis (CG-EGA) was used as the analytical tool.
RESULTS: Using CG-EGA, the "clinically accurate," "benign errors," and "clinical errors" were 86.8%, 8.7%, and 4.5% for SMBG and 92.7%, 3.7%, and 3.6% for CGM, respectively. If blood glucose is viewed as a process in time, SMBG would provide accurate information about this process 86.8% of the time, whereas CGM would provide accurate information about this process 92.7% of the time (P < 0.0001). In the hypoglycemic range, however, SMBG is more accurate as the "clinically accurate," "benign errors," and "clinical errors" were 83.5%, 6.4%, and 10.1% for SMBG and 57.1%, 8.4%, and 34.5% (P < 0.0001) for CGM, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: While SMBG produces more accurate instantaneous glucose values than CGM, control of blood glucose involves a system in flux, and CGM provides more detailed insight into the dynamics of that system. In the normal and elevated glucose ranges, the additional information about the direction and rate of glucose change provided by the FreeStyle Navigator CGM System increases the ability to make correct clinical decisions when compared to episodic SMBG tests.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20388046     DOI: 10.1089/dia.2009.0136

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther        ISSN: 1520-9156            Impact factor:   6.118


  8 in total

Review 1.  The challenges of measuring glycemic variability.

Authors:  David Rodbard
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2012-05-01

2.  Accuracy and reliability of continuous glucose monitoring systems: a head-to-head comparison.

Authors:  Yoeri M Luijf; Julia K Mader; Werner Doll; Thomas Pieber; Anne Farret; Jerome Place; Eric Renard; Daniela Bruttomesso; Alessio Filippi; Angelo Avogaro; Sabine Arnolds; Carsten Benesch; Lutz Heinemann; J Hans DeVries
Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther       Date:  2013-05-07       Impact factor: 6.118

3.  Evaluation of a novel continuous glucose measurement device in patients with diabetes mellitus across the glycemic range.

Authors:  Linda Morrow; Marcus Hompesch; Ann M Tideman; Jennifer Matson; Nancy Dunne; Scott Pardo; Joan L Parkes; Holly C Schachner; David A Simmons
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2011-07-01

4.  Signal processing algorithms implementing the "smart sensor" concept to improve continuous glucose monitoring in diabetes.

Authors:  Andrea Facchinetti; Giovanni Sparacino; Claudio Cobelli
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2013-09-01

Review 5.  Toward a Framework for Outcome-Based Analytical Performance Specifications: A Methodology Review of Indirect Methods for Evaluating the Impact of Measurement Uncertainty on Clinical Outcomes.

Authors:  Alison F Smith; Bethany Shinkins; Peter S Hall; Claire T Hulme; Mike P Messenger
Journal:  Clin Chem       Date:  2019-08-23       Impact factor: 8.327

6.  Assessing sensor accuracy for non-adjunct use of continuous glucose monitoring.

Authors:  Boris P Kovatchev; Stephen D Patek; Edward Andrew Ortiz; Marc D Breton
Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther       Date:  2014-12-01       Impact factor: 6.118

7.  Assessment of patient-led or physician-driven continuous glucose monitoring in patients with poorly controlled type 1 diabetes using basal-bolus insulin regimens: a 1-year multicenter study.

Authors:  Jean-Pierre Riveline; Pauline Schaepelynck; Lucy Chaillous; Eric Renard; Agnès Sola-Gazagnes; Alfred Penfornis; Nadia Tubiana-Rufi; Véronique Sulmont; Bogdan Catargi; Céline Lukas; Régis P Radermecker; Charles Thivolet; François Moreau; Pierre-Yves Benhamou; Bruno Guerci; Anne-Marie Leguerrier; Luc Millot; Claude Sachon; Guillaume Charpentier; Hélène Hanaire
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2012-03-28       Impact factor: 19.112

Review 8.  Italian contributions to the development of continuous glucose monitoring sensors for diabetes management.

Authors:  Giovanni Sparacino; Mattia Zanon; Andrea Facchinetti; Chiara Zecchin; Alberto Maran; Claudio Cobelli
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2012-10-12       Impact factor: 3.576

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.