In vitro, in vivo and post explantation testing of glucose-detecting biosensors: Current methods and recommendations
Open accessAbstract
To date, there have been a number of cases where glucose sensors have performed well over long periods of implantation; however, it remains difficult to predict whether a given sensor will perform reliably, will exhibit gradual degradation of performance, or will fail outright soon after implantation. Typically, the literature emphasizes the sensor that performed well, while only briefly (if at all) mentioning the failed devices. This leaves open the question of whether current sensor designs are adequate for the hostile in vivo environment, and whether these sensors have been assessed by the proper regimen of testing protocols. This paper reviews the current in vitro and in vivo testing procedures used to evaluate the functionality and biocompatibility of implantable glucose sensors. An overview of the standards and regulatory bodies that govern biomaterials and end product device testing precedes a discussion of up-to-date invasive and non-invasive technologies for diabetes management. Analysis of current in vitro, in vivo, and then post explantation testing is presented. Given the underlying assumption that the success of the sensor in vitro foreshadows the long-term reliability of the sensor in the human body, the relative merits of these testing methods are evaluated with respect to how representative they are of human models.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Subcutaneous oxygen tension in humans ranges from about 40 mm Hg to 130 mm Hg and is affected by anesthetics and hypoxia at the implantation site.
“Subcutaneous oxygen tension for humans ranges from 40 mm Hg (~5 kPa) to 130 mm Hg (~17kPa) with partial pressures affected by anesthetics and hypoxia at the implantation site.70”
From Biocompatible Materials for Continuous Glucose Monitoring Devices (2013) · cites this paper as [70]
In vitro test outcomes are not an accurate predictor of biocompatibility or glucose sensor performance in vivo.
“their outcomes are not an accurate predictor of biocompatibility or glucose sensor performance in vivo.70,112”
From Biocompatible Materials for Continuous Glucose Monitoring Devices (2013) · cites this paper as [70]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 100 · Cited by 181
- Authors
- Koschwanez, H. E., & Reichert, W. M.
- Affiliations
- Duke University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Reichert, William M.
- ORCID
- Reichert, William M.
- Venue
- Biomaterials
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2007-09
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 25
- Pages
- 3687-3703
- ISSN
- 0142-9612 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC1987311
- OpenAlex
- W2059354250
- Cited by
- 181
- References
- 100
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 23
- FWCI
- 0.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Biomaterials (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- ResearchSpace (University of Auckland) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (DK54932, R01DK054932, R56DK054932)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Electrochemical sensors and biosensors
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
- Physical Sciences › Chemical Engineering › Bioengineering › Analytical Chemistry and Sensors
- Keywords
- implantable glucose sensor, biosensors, sensor reliability, biocompatibility, in vitro evaluation, in vivo evaluation, diabetes management, non-invasive glucose monitoring, sensor degradation
- MeSH terms
- Blood Glucose, Equipment Design, Humans, Biosensing Techniques, Guidelines as Topic
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review