Literature DB >> 30994362

Comparison of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Accuracy Between Abdominal and Upper Arm Insertion Sites.

Isabelle Isa Kristin Steineck1,2,3, Zeinab Mahmoudi2,4, Ajenthen Ranjan1,2,3,5, Signe Schmidt1,2,3, John Bagterp Jørgensen4, Kirsten Nørgaard1,3.   

Abstract

Background: The aim was to compare the accuracy of the Dexcom® G4 Platinum continuous glucose monitor (CGM) sensor inserted on the upper arm and the abdomen in adults.
Methods: Fourteen adults with type 1 diabetes wore two CGMs, one placed on the upper arm and one placed on the abdomen. Three in-clinic visits of 5 h with YSI (2300 STAT, Yellow Springs Instrument) measurements as comparator were performed. Each visit was followed by 4 days with seven-point self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in free-living conditions. Accuracy analyses on the paired CGM-YSI and CGM-SMBG measurements of the two CGM sensors were performed.
Results: Using YSI as comparator, the overall Mean Absolute Relative Difference (MARD) for the CGMabd was 12.3% and CGMarm was 12.0%. The percentage of the CGM measurements in zone A of Clarke error grid analysis for the CGMabd was 85.6% and CGMarm was 86.0%. The hypoglycemia sensitivity for the CGMabd and CGMarm was 69.3%. Using SMBG as comparator, the overall MARD for the CGMabd was 12.5% and CGMarm was 12.0%. The percentage of the CGM measurements in zone A for the CGMabd was 84.1% and the CGMarm was 85.0%. The hypoglycemia sensitivity for the CGMabd was 60.0% and the CGMarm was 71.1%. All the P-values from the comparisons between the accuracy of CGMabd and CGMarm were >0.05.
Conclusion: The accuracy of a Dexcom G4 Platinum CGM sensor placed on the upper arm was not different from the accuracy of the sensor placed on the abdomen in adults with type 1 diabetes.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Abdomen; Accuracy; Arm; CGM; Continuous glucose monitoring; Insertion sites

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30994362     DOI: 10.1089/dia.2019.0014

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


  7 in total

1.  Imprecision nutrition? Different simultaneous continuous glucose monitors provide discordant meal rankings for incremental postprandial glucose in subjects without diabetes.

Authors:  Rebecca Howard; Juen Guo; Kevin D Hall
Journal:  Am J Clin Nutr       Date:  2020-10-01       Impact factor: 7.045

2.  Non-invasive and minimally invasive glucose monitoring devices: a systematic review and meta-analysis on diagnostic accuracy of hypoglycaemia detection.

Authors:  Nicole Lindner; Aya Kuwabara; Tim Holt
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2021-05-10

3.  Use and Accuracy of Inpatient CGM During the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Observational Study of General Medicine and ICU Patients.

Authors:  Rebecca Rick Longo; Heather Elias; Mehvish Khan; Jane Jefferie Seley
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2021-05-10

4.  Mean Absolute Relative Difference of Blood Glucose Monitoring Systems and Relationship to ISO 15197.

Authors:  Guido Freckmann; Jochen Mende; Stefan Pleus; Delia Waldenmaier; Annette Baumstark; Nina Jendrike; Cornelia Haug
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2021-03-24

5.  Accuracy and Safety of Dexcom G7 Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Adults with Diabetes.

Authors:  Satish K Garg; Mark Kipnes; Kristin Castorino; Timothy S Bailey; Halis Kaan Akturk; John B Welsh; Mark P Christiansen; Andrew K Balo; Sue A Brown; Jennifer L Reid; Stayce E Beck
Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther       Date:  2022-02-21       Impact factor: 7.337

6.  Glucose management for exercise using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and intermittently scanned CGM (isCGM) systems in type 1 diabetes: position statement of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) and of the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes (ISPAD) endorsed by JDRF and supported by the American Diabetes Association (ADA).

Authors:  Othmar Moser; Michael C Riddell; Max L Eckstein; Peter Adolfsson; Rémi Rabasa-Lhoret; Louisa van den Boom; Pieter Gillard; Kirsten Nørgaard; Nick S Oliver; Dessi P Zaharieva; Tadej Battelino; Carine de Beaufort; Richard M Bergenstal; Bruce Buckingham; Eda Cengiz; Asma Deeb; Tim Heise; Simon Heller; Aaron J Kowalski; Lalantha Leelarathna; Chantal Mathieu; Christoph Stettler; Martin Tauschmann; Hood Thabit; Emma G Wilmot; Harald Sourij; Carmel E Smart; Peter G Jacobs; Richard M Bracken; Julia K Mader
Journal:  Pediatr Diabetes       Date:  2020-10-13       Impact factor: 4.866

7.  Validity of continuous glucose monitoring for categorizing glycemic responses to diet: implications for use in personalized nutrition.

Authors:  Jordi Merino; Inbar Linenberg; Kate M Bermingham; Sajaysurya Ganesh; Elco Bakker; Linda M Delahanty; Andrew T Chan; Joan Capdevila Pujol; Jonathan Wolf; Haya Al Khatib; Paul W Franks; Tim D Spector; Jose M Ordovas; Sarah E Berry; Ana M Valdes
Journal:  Am J Clin Nutr       Date:  2022-06-07       Impact factor: 8.472

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.