Medizinische Universität Graz - Research portal

Go directly to the nagivation.
Go directly to the content.

Navigation/Search

Selected Publication:

SHR Neuro Cancer Cardio Lipid Metab Microb

Kropff, J; Bruttomesso, D; Doll, W; Farret, A; Galasso, S; Luijf, YM; Mader, JK; Place, J; Boscari, F; Pieber, TR; Renard, E; DeVries, JH.
Accuracy of two continuous glucose monitoring systems: a head-to-head comparison under clinical research centre and daily life conditions.
Diabetes Obes Metab. 2015; 17(4):343-349 Doi: 10.1111/dom.12378 [OPEN ACCESS]
Web of Science PubMed FullText FullText_MUG

Co-authors Med Uni Graz: Doll Werner; Mader Julia; Pieber Thomas
Altmetrics:
Dimensions Citations:
Plum Analytics:
Scite (citation analytics):
Abstract:: To assess the accuracy and reliability of the two most widely used continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems. We studied the Dexcom®G4 Platinum (DG4P; Dexcom, San Diego, CA, USA) and Medtronic Paradigm Veo Enlite system (ENL; Medtronic, Northridge, CA, USA) CGM systems, in 24 patients with type 1 diabetes. The CGM systems were tested during 6-day home use and a nested 6-h clinical research centre (CRC) visit. During the CRC visit, frequent venous blood glucose samples were used as reference while patients received a meal with an increased insulin bolus to induce an aggravated postprandial glucose nadir. At home, patients performed at least six reference capillary blood measurements per day. A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed using all data points ≥15 min apart. The overall mean absolute relative difference (MARD) value [standard deviation (s.d.)] measured at the CRC was 13.6 (11.0)% for the DG4P and 16.6 (13.5)% for the ENL [p < 0.0002, confidence interval of difference (CI Δ) 1.7-4.3%, n = 530]. The overall MARD assessed at home was 12.2 (12.0)% for the DG4P and 19.9 (20.5)% for the ENL (p < 0.0001, CI Δ = 5.8-8.7%, n = 839). During the CRC visit, the MARD in the hypoglycaemic range [≤3.9 mmol/l (70 mg/dl)], was 17.6 (12.2)% for the DG4P and 24.6 (18.8)% for the ENL (p = 0.005, CI Δ 3.1-10.7%, n = 117). Both sensors showed higher MARD values during hypoglycaemia than during euglycaemia [3.9-10 mmol/l (70-180 mg/dl)]: for the DG4P 17.6 versus 13.0% and for the ENL 24.6 versus 14.2%. During circumstances of intended use, including both a CRC and home phase, the ENL was noticeably less accurate than the DG4P sensor. Both sensors showed lower accuracy in the hypoglycaemic range. The DG4P was less affected by this negative effect of hypoglycaemia on sensor accuracy than was the ENL. © 2014 The Authors. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Find related publications in this database (using NLM MeSH Indexing): Activities of Daily Living -; Adult -; Adult -; Biomedical Research - instrumentation; Blood Glucose - analysis; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1 - blood; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1 - drug therapy; Female -; Female -; Humans -; Hyperglycemia - diagnosis; Hyperglycemia - prevention & control; Hypoglycemia - chemically induced; Hypoglycemia - diagnosis; Hypoglycemia - prevention & control; Hypoglycemic Agents - administration & dosage; Hypoglycemic Agents - therapeutic use; Injections, Subcutaneous -; Insulin - administration & dosage; Insulin - therapeutic use; Insulin Infusion Systems -; Insulin Infusion Systems -; Male -; Materials Testing -; Middle Aged -; Monitoring, Ambulatory - instrumentation; Monitoring, Ambulatory -; Reproducibility of Results -
Find related publications in this database (Keywords): type 1 diabetes; CSII