CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 180Diabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes Treatment and ManagementDiabetes Management and Education

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

Open access
Garg, Satish K., Kipnes, Mark, Castorino, Kristin, Bailey, Timothy S., Akturk, Halis Kaan, Welsh, John B., Christiansen, Mark P., Balo, Andrew K. +3 more·2022·Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics
DOI 10.1089/dia.2022.0011PMC PMC9208857
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background: We evaluated the accuracy and safety of a seventh generation (G7) Dexcom continuous glucose monitor (CGM) during 10.5 days of use in adults with diabetes. Methods: Adults with either type 1 or type 2 diabetes (on intensive insulin therapy or not) participated at 12 investigational sites in the United States. In-clinic visits were conducted on days 1 or 2, 4 or 7, and on the second half of day 10 or the first half of day 11 for frequent comparisons with comparator blood glucose measurements obtained with the YSI 2300 Stat Plus glucose analyzer. Participants wore sensors concurrently on the upper arm and abdomen. Accuracy evaluation included the proportion of CGM values within 15% of comparator glucose levels >100 mg/dL or within 15 mg/dL of comparator levels ≤100 mg/dL (%15/15), along with the %20/20 and %30/30 agreement rates. The mean absolute relative difference (MARD) between temporally matched CGM and comparator values was also calculated. Results: Data from 316 participants (619 sensors, 77,774 matched pairs) were analyzed. For arm- and abdomen-placed sensors, overall MARDs were 8.2% and 9.1%, respectively. Overall %15/15, %20/20, and %30/30 agreement rates were 89.6%, 95.3%, and 98.8% for arm-placed sensors and were 85.5%, 93.2%, and 98.1% for abdomen-placed sensors. Across days of wear, glucose concentration ranges, and rates of change, %20/20 agreement rates varied by no more than 9% from the overall %20/20. No serious adverse events were reported. Conclusions: The G7 CGM provides accurate glucose readings with single-digit MARD with arm or abdomen placement in adults with diabetes. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04794478

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1089/dia.2022.0011

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • In a meta-analysis and systematic review of 15 randomized clinical trials and observational studies (783 255 patients) comparing intensive control (HbA1C <7.5%) vs standard care in adults 60 years or older or frail adults of any age with type 2 diabetes, there was no difference in mortality, but intensive control was associated with both a reduction in microvascular and macrovascular complications

    “In a meta-analysis and systematic review of 15 randomized clinical trials and observational studies (783 255 patients) comparing intensive control (HbA1C <7.5%) vs standard care in adults 60 years or older or frail adults of any age with type 2 diabetes, there was no difference in mortality, but intensive control was associated with both a reduction in microvascular and macrovascular complications”

    From Diagnosis and Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes in Adults (2025) · cites this paper as [45]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 2 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [19]Calhoun P, Puhr S, Welsh JB, et al.: Lag time of a sixth-generation continuous glucose monitoring system. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2018; 13: 308.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Garg, S. K., Kipnes, M., Castorino, K., Bailey, T. S., Akturk, H. K., Welsh, J. B., Christiansen, M. P., Balo, A. K., Brown, S. A., Reid, J. L., & Beck, S. E.
Affiliations
  • University of Colorado Anschutz (US)
  • DGD Clinic, San Antonio, Texas, USA.
  • Sansum Diabetes Research Institute (US)
  • AMCR Institute (US)
  • Department of Medicine and Pediatrics, Barbara Davis Center for Diabetes, University of Colorado, Aurora, Colorado, USA.
  • Dexcom (United States) (US)
  • Diablo Clinical Research (US)
  • University of Virginia (US)
Corresponding author
Garg, Satish K.
ORCID
Venue
Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2022-05-31
Volume
24
Issue
6
Pages
373-380
ISSN
  • 1520-9156 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-8593
DOI
10.1089/dia.2022.0011
PMC
PMC9208857
OpenAlex
W4212853509
Cited by
179
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 44 · 2025: 63 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 12
FWCI
25.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
Keywords
Dexcom G7, continuous glucose monitoring, type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, sensor accuracy, mean absolute relative difference, sensor placement, intensive insulin therapy, device safety
MeSH terms
Adult, Blood Glucose, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Glucose, Humans, Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring, Reproducibility of Results

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