Literature DB >> 25037194

Characterizing accuracy and precision of glucose sensors and meters.

David Rodbard1.   

Abstract

There is need for a method to describe precision and accuracy of glucose measurement as a smooth continuous function of glucose level rather than as a step function for a few discrete ranges of glucose. We propose and illustrate a method to generate a "Glucose Precision Profile" showing absolute relative deviation (ARD) and /or %CV versus glucose level to better characterize measurement errors at any glucose level. We examine the relationship between glucose measured by test and comparator methods using linear regression. We examine bias by plotting deviation = (test - comparator method) versus glucose level. We compute the deviation, absolute deviation (AD), ARD, and standard deviation (SD) for each data pair. We utilize curve smoothing procedures to minimize the effects of random sampling variability to facilitate identification and display of the underlying relationships between ARD or %CV and glucose level. AD, ARD, SD, and %CV display smooth continuous relationships versus glucose level. Estimates of MARD and %CV are subject to relatively large errors in the hypoglycemic range due in part to a markedly nonlinear relationship with glucose level and in part to the limited number of observations in the hypoglycemic range. The curvilinear relationships of ARD and %CV versus glucose level are helpful when characterizing and comparing the precision and accuracy of glucose sensors and meters.
© 2014 Diabetes Technology Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bland–Altman plot; Clarke error grid; Parkes error grid; accuracy; bias; continuous glucose monitoring; diabetes mellitus type 1; diabetes mellitus type 2; glucose monitoring; mean absolute relative deviation (MARD); precision; precision absolute relative deviation (PARD); self-monitoring of blood glucose; statistical analysis

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25037194      PMCID: PMC4455380          DOI: 10.1177/1932296814541810

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol        ISSN: 1932-2968


  21 in total

1.  A note on the use of the intraclass correlation coefficient in the evaluation of agreement between two methods of measurement.

Authors:  J M Bland; D G Altman
Journal:  Comput Biol Med       Date:  1990       Impact factor: 4.589

2.  Accuracy of the 5-day FreeStyle Navigator Continuous Glucose Monitoring System: comparison with frequent laboratory reference measurements.

Authors:  Richard L Weinstein; Sherwyn L Schwartz; Ronald L Brazg; Jolyon R Bugler; Thomas A Peyser; Geoffrey V McGarraugh
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2007-03-02       Impact factor: 19.112

3.  Improvement in glycemic excursions with a transcutaneous, real-time continuous glucose sensor: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Satish Garg; Howard Zisser; Sherwyn Schwartz; Timothy Bailey; Roy Kaplan; Samuel Ellis; Lois Jovanovic
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 19.112

4.  Evaluating the clinical accuracy of two continuous glucose sensors using continuous glucose-error grid analysis.

Authors:  William L Clarke; Stacey Anderson; Leon Farhy; Marc Breton; Linda Gonder-Frederick; Daniel Cox; Boris Kovatchev
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 19.112

5.  Evaluating clinical accuracy of systems for self-monitoring of blood glucose.

Authors:  W L Clarke; D Cox; L A Gonder-Frederick; W Carter; S L Pohl
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  1987 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 19.112

6.  Computer analysis of radioligand assay and radioimmunoassay data.

Authors:  D Rodbard; J E Lewald
Journal:  Acta Endocrinol Suppl (Copenh)       Date:  1970

7.  Guidelines for immunoassay data processing.

Authors:  R A Dudley; P Edwards; R P Ekins; D J Finney; I G McKenzie; G M Raab; D Rodbard; R P Rodgers
Journal:  Clin Chem       Date:  1985-08       Impact factor: 8.327

8.  The accuracy of the FreeStyle Navigator continuous glucose monitoring system in children with type 1 diabetes.

Authors:  Darrell M Wilson; Roy W Beck; William V Tamborlane; Mariya J Dontchev; Craig Kollman; Peter Chase; Larry A Fox; Katrina J Ruedy; Eva Tsalikian; Stuart A Weinzimer
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 19.112

9.  A new biometrical procedure for testing the equality of measurements from two different analytical methods. Application of linear regression procedures for method comparison studies in clinical chemistry, Part I.

Authors:  H Passing
Journal:  J Clin Chem Clin Biochem       Date:  1983-11

10.  A comparative effectiveness analysis of three continuous glucose monitors: the Navigator, G4 Platinum, and Enlite.

Authors:  Edward R Damiano; Katherine McKeon; Firas H El-Khatib; Hui Zheng; David M Nathan; Steven J Russell
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2014-04-21
View more
  17 in total

1.  Performance Comparison of CGM Systems: MARD Values Are Not Always a Reliable Indicator of CGM System Accuracy.

Authors:  Harald Kirchsteiger; Lutz Heinemann; Guido Freckmann; Volker Lodwig; Günther Schmelzeisen-Redeker; Michael Schoemaker; Luigi Del Re
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2015-09-01

2.  Accuracy of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Patients After Total Pancreatectomy with Islet Autotransplantation.

Authors:  Gregory P Forlenza; Brandon M Nathan; Antoinette Moran; Ty B Dunn; Gregory J Beilman; Timothy L Pruett; Boris P Kovatchev; Melena D Bellin
Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther       Date:  2016-04-22       Impact factor: 6.118

3.  Benefits and Limitations of MARD as a Performance Parameter for Continuous Glucose Monitoring in the Interstitial Space.

Authors:  Lutz Heinemann; Michael Schoemaker; Günther Schmelzeisen-Redecker; Rolf Hinzmann; Adham Kassab; Guido Freckmann; Florian Reiterer; Luigi Del Re
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2019-06-19

Review 4.  Clinical Implications of Accuracy Measurements of Continuous Glucose Sensors.

Authors:  Timothy S Bailey
Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 6.118

5.  Significance and Reliability of MARD for the Accuracy of CGM Systems.

Authors:  Florian Reiterer; Philipp Polterauer; Michael Schoemaker; Guenther Schmelzeisen-Redecker; Guido Freckmann; Lutz Heinemann; Luigi Del Re
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2016-09-25

Review 6.  Continuous Glucose Monitoring: A Review of Successes, Challenges, and Opportunities.

Authors:  David Rodbard
Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 6.118

7.  A clinical trial of the accuracy and treatment experience of the Dexcom G4 sensor (Dexcom G4 system) and Enlite sensor (guardian REAL-time system) tested simultaneously in ambulatory patients with type 1 diabetes.

Authors:  Viktorija Matuleviciene; Jeffrey I Joseph; Mervi Andelin; Irl B Hirsch; Stig Attvall; Aldina Pivodic; Sofia Dahlqvist; David Klonoff; Börje Haraldsson; Marcus Lind
Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther       Date:  2014-09-18       Impact factor: 6.118

8.  Effect of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Accuracy on Clinicians' Retrospective Decision Making in Diabetes: A Pilot Study.

Authors:  Zeinab Mahmoudi; Mette Dencker Johansen; Hanne Holdflod Nørgaard; Steen Andersen; Ulrik Pedersen-Bjergaard; Lise Tarnow; Jens Sandahl Christiansen; Ole Hejlesen
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2015-06-08

9.  Continuous Glucose Monitoring Measures Can Be Used for Glycemic Control in the ICU: An In-Silico Study.

Authors:  Tony Zhou; Jennifer L Dickson; Geoffrey M Shaw; J Geoffrey Chase
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2017-11-06

Review 10.  Continuous glucose monitoring in patients with type 2 diabetes on hemodialysis.

Authors:  Maurizio Gallieni; Cristina De Salvo; Maria Elena Lunati; Antonio Rossi; Francesca D'Addio; Ida Pastore; Gianmarco Sabiu; Roberta Miglio; Gian Vincenzo Zuccotti; Paolo Fiorina
Journal:  Acta Diabetol       Date:  2021-03-20       Impact factor: 4.280

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.