Accuracy and Reliability of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems: A Head-to-Head Comparison
- 1 August 2013
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Mary Ann Liebert Inc in Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics
- Vol. 15 (8), 721-726
- https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2013.0049
Abstract
Objective: This study assessed the accuracy and reliability of three continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems. Research Design and Methods: We studied the Animas® (West Chester, PA) Vibe™ with Dexcom® (San Diego, CA) G4™ version A sensor (G4A), the Abbott Diabetes Care (Alameda, CA) Freestyle® Navigator I (NAV), and the Medtronic (Northridge, CA) Paradigm® with Enlite™ sensor (ENL) in 20 patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus. All systems were investigated both in a clinical research center (CRC) and at home. In the CRC, patients received a meal with a delayed and increased insulin dose to induce a postprandial glucose peak and nadir. Hereafter, randomization determined which two of the three systems would be worn at home until the end of functioning, attempting use beyond manufacturer-specified lifetime. Patients performed at least five reference finger sticks per day. An analysis of variance was performed on all data points ≥15 min apart. Results: Overall average mean absolute relative difference (MARD) (SD) measured at the CRC was 16.5% (14.3%) for NAV and 16.4% (15.6%) for ENL, outperforming G4A at 20.5% (18.2%) (PP=0.006). Median time until end of functioning was similar: 10.0 (1.0) days for G4A, 8.0 (3.5) days for NAV, and 8.0 (1.5) days for ENL (P=0.119). Conclusions: In the CRC, G4A was less accurate than NAV and ENL sensors, which seemed comparable. However, at home, ENL was less accurate than NAV and G4A. Moreover, CGM systems often show sufficient accuracy to be used beyond manufacturer-specified lifetime.Keywords
This publication has 10 references indexed in Scilit:
- Reimbursement for Continuous Glucose Monitoring: A European ViewJournal of Diabetes Science and Technology, 2012
- Continuous Glucose Monitoring Accuracy Results Vary between Assessment at Home and Assessment at the Clinical Research CenterJournal of Diabetes Science and Technology, 2012
- Continuous glucose monitoring systems for type 1 diabetes mellitusEmergencias, 2012
- Comparison of the Clinical Information Provided by the FreeStyle Navigator Continuous Interstitial Glucose Monitor Versus Traditional Blood Glucose ReadingsDiabetes Technology & Therapeutics, 2010
- Sense and nonsense in sensorsDiabetologia, 2010
- Accuracy of the SEVEN® Continuous Glucose Monitoring System: Comparison with Frequently Sampled Venous Glucose MeasurementsJournal of Diabetes Science and Technology, 2009
- The Accuracy and Efficacy of Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring Sensor in Patients with Type 1 DiabetesDiabetes Technology & Therapeutics, 2008
- Relationship Between Interstitial And Blood Glucose in Type 1 Diabetes Patients: Delay And The Push-Pull Phenomenon RevisitedDiabetes Technology & Therapeutics, 2007
- Comparison of a Needle-Type and a Microdialysis Continuous Glucose Monitor in Type 1 Diabetic PatientsDiabetes Care, 2005
- Frequency characterization of blood glucose dynamics.Annals of Biomedical Engineering, 2003