Literature DB >> 25562886

The surveillance error grid.

David C Klonoff1, Courtney Lias2, Robert Vigersky3, William Clarke4, Joan Lee Parkes5, David B Sacks6, M Sue Kirkman7, Boris Kovatchev4.   

Abstract

Currently used error grids for assessing clinical accuracy of blood glucose monitors are based on out-of-date medical practices. Error grids have not been widely embraced by regulatory agencies for clearance of monitors, but this type of tool could be useful for surveillance of the performance of cleared products. Diabetes Technology Society together with representatives from the Food and Drug Administration, the American Diabetes Association, the Endocrine Society, and the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation, and representatives of academia, industry, and government, have developed a new error grid, called the surveillance error grid (SEG) as a tool to assess the degree of clinical risk from inaccurate blood glucose (BG) monitors. A total of 206 diabetes clinicians were surveyed about the clinical risk of errors of measured BG levels by a monitor. The impact of such errors on 4 patient scenarios was surveyed. Each monitor/reference data pair was scored and color-coded on a graph per its average risk rating. Using modeled data representative of the accuracy of contemporary meters, the relationships between clinical risk and monitor error were calculated for the Clarke error grid (CEG), Parkes error grid (PEG), and SEG. SEG action boundaries were consistent across scenarios, regardless of whether the patient was type 1 or type 2 or using insulin or not. No significant differences were noted between responses of adult/pediatric or 4 types of clinicians. Although small specific differences in risk boundaries between US and non-US clinicians were noted, the panel felt they did not justify separate grids for these 2 types of clinicians. The data points of the SEG were classified in 15 zones according to their assigned level of risk, which allowed for comparisons with the classic CEG and PEG. Modeled glucose monitor data with realistic self-monitoring of blood glucose errors derived from meter testing experiments plotted on the SEG when compared to the data plotted on the CEG and PEG produced risk estimates that were more granular and reflective of a continuously increasing risk scale. The SEG is a modern metric for clinical risk assessments of BG monitor errors that assigns a unique risk score to each monitor data point when compared to a reference value. The SEG allows the clinical accuracy of a BG monitor to be portrayed in many ways, including as the percentages of data points falling into custom-defined risk zones. For modeled data the SEG, compared with the CEG and PEG, allows greater precision for quantifying risk, especially when the risks are low. This tool will be useful to allow regulators and manufacturers to monitor and evaluate glucose monitor performance in their surveillance programs.
© 2014 Diabetes Technology Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  accuracy; blood glucose; error grid; monitor; surveillance

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25562886      PMCID: PMC4764212          DOI: 10.1177/1932296814539589

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


  18 in total

1.  A new consensus error grid to evaluate the clinical significance of inaccuracies in the measurement of blood glucose.

Authors:  J L Parkes; S L Slatin; S Pardo; B H Ginsberg
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 19.112

2.  Technical aspects of the Parkes error grid.

Authors:  Andreas Pfützner; David C Klonoff; Scott Pardo; Joan L Parkes
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2013-09-01

3.  System accuracy evaluation of 43 blood glucose monitoring systems for self-monitoring of blood glucose according to DIN EN ISO 15197.

Authors:  Guido Freckmann; Christina Schmid; Annette Baumstark; Stefan Pleus; Manuela Link; Cornelia Haug
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2012-09-01

4.  The food and drug administration is now preparing to establish tighter performance requirements for blood glucose monitors.

Authors:  David C Klonoff
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2010-05-01

Review 5.  Comparative analysis of the efficacy of continuous glucose monitoring and self-monitoring of blood glucose in type 1 diabetes mellitus.

Authors:  Baraka Floyd; Prakash Chandra; Stephanie Hall; Christopher Phillips; Ernest Alema-Mensah; Gregory Strayhorn; Elizabeth O Ofili; Guillermo E Umpierrez
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2012-09-01

6.  Long-term outcome of insulin pump therapy in children with type 1 diabetes assessed in a large population-based case-control study.

Authors:  Stephanie R Johnson; Matthew N Cooper; Timothy W Jones; Elizabeth A Davis
Journal:  Diabetologia       Date:  2013-08-21       Impact factor: 10.122

7.  Do currently available blood glucose monitors meet regulatory standards? 1-day public meeting in Arlington, Virginia.

Authors:  David C Klonoff; Juliet S Reyes
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2013-07-01

8.  Accuracy of perceiving blood glucose in IDDM.

Authors:  D J Cox; W L Clarke; L Gonder-Frederick; S Pohl; C Hoover; A Snyder; L Zimbelman; W R Carter; S Bobbitt; J Pennebaker
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  1985 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 19.112

9.  Short- and long-term effects of real-time continuous glucose monitoring in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Authors:  Robert A Vigersky; Stephanie J Fonda; Mary Chellappa; M Susan Walker; Nicole M Ehrhardt
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2011-11-18       Impact factor: 19.112

10.  Hypoglycemia and diabetes: a report of a workgroup of the American Diabetes Association and the Endocrine Society.

Authors:  Elizabeth R Seaquist; John Anderson; Belinda Childs; Philip Cryer; Samuel Dagogo-Jack; Lisa Fish; Simon R Heller; Henry Rodriguez; James Rosenzweig; Robert Vigersky
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2013-04-15       Impact factor: 19.112

View more
  53 in total

1.  Comparison of Accuracy Guidelines for Hospital Glucose Meters.

Authors:  Cynthia Foss Bowman; James H Nichols
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2020-01-25

2.  Assessment of changes in blood glucose concentration with intravascular microdialysis.

Authors:  Marc-Olivier Fischer; Corentin Gouëzel; Sabine Fradin; Vladimir Saplacan; Jean-Louis Gérard; Jean-Luc Fellahi; Jean-Luc Hanouz
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2018-02-05       Impact factor: 2.502

3.  The Effects of Temperature and Relative Humidity on Point-of-Care Glucose Measurements in Hospital Practice in a Tropical Clinical Setting.

Authors:  Busadee Pratumvinit; Nattakom Charoenkoop; Soamsiri Niwattisaiwong; Gerald J Kost; Panutsaya Tientadakul
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2016-08-22

4.  Performance and System Validation of a New Cellular-Enabled Blood Glucose Monitoring System Using a New Standard Reference Measurement Procedure of Isotope Dilution UPLC-MRM Mass Spectrometry.

Authors:  Kimon Angelides; Risë K Matsunami; David A Engler
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2015-05-22

5.  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

6.  Computing the surveillance error grid analysis: procedure and examples.

Authors:  Boris P Kovatchev; Christian A Wakeman; Marc D Breton; Gerald J Kost; Richard F Louie; Nam K Tran; David C Klonoff
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2014-06-13

Review 7.  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

8.  Assessment of a Noninvasive Chronic Glucose Monitoring System in Euglycemic and Diabetic Swine (Sus scrofa).

Authors:  Rebecca A Ober; Gail E Geist
Journal:  J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci       Date:  2020-04-13       Impact factor: 1.232

Review 9.  Measures of Accuracy for Continuous Glucose Monitoring and Blood Glucose Monitoring Devices.

Authors:  Guido Freckmann; Stefan Pleus; Mike Grady; Steven Setford; Brian Levy
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2018-11-19

10.  Evaluation of Analytical Performance of Three Blood Glucose Monitoring Systems: System Accuracy, Measurement Repeatability, and Intermediate Measurement Precision.

Authors:  Stefan Pleus; Nina Jendrike; Annette Baumstark; Jochen Mende; Cornelia Haug; Guido Freckmann
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2018-10-05
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.