Cited by 198Diabetes Management and ResearchElectrochemical sensors and biosensorsPancreatic function and diabetes

Delays in Minimally Invasive Continuous Glucose Monitoring Devices: A Review of Current Technology

Open access
Keenan, D. Barry, Mastrototaro, John J., Voskanyan, Gayane, Steil, Garry M.·2009·Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology

Abstract

Through the use of enzymatic sensors—inserted subcutaneously in the abdomen or ex vivo by means of microdialysis fluid extraction—real-time minimally invasive continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices estimate blood glucose by measuring a patient's interstitial fluid (ISF) glucose concentration. Signals acquired from the interstitial space are subsequently calibrated with capillary blood glucose samples, a method that has raised certain questions regarding the effects of physiological time lags and of the duration of processing delays built into these devices. The time delay between a blood glucose reading and the value displayed by a continuous glucose monitor consists of the sum of the time lag between ISF and plasma glucose, in addition to the inherent electrochemical sensor delay due to the reaction process and any front-end signal-processing delays required to produce smooth traces. Presented is a review of commercially available, minimally invasive continuous glucose monitors with manufacturer-reported device delays. The data acquisition process for the Medtronic MiniMed (Northridge, CA) continuous glucose monitoring system—CGMS® Gold—and the Guardian® RT monitor is described with associated delays incurred for each processing step. Filter responses for each algorithm are examined using in vitro hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic clamps, as well as with an analysis of fast glucose excursions from a typical meal response. Results demonstrate that the digital filters used by each algorithm do not cause adverse effects to fast physiologic glucose excursions, although nonphysiologic signal characteristics can produce greater delays.

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 · 10.1177/193229680900300528

Cites

27 of 27 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?

  • The continuous glucose monitoring system was validated against plasma glucose.

    “The Medtronic Guardian® REAL-Time has been validated against plasma glucose [49] and is widely used in clinical settings [50], [51].”

    From Impact of Five Nights of Sleep Restriction on Glucose Metabolism, Leptin and Testosterone in Young Adult Men (2012) · cites this paper as [49]

    The Abstract says CGM signals are calibrated with capillary blood glucose samples, and the Discussion names the Guardian REAL-Time while discussing sensor delays. Neither passage reports that the Guardian REAL-Time was validated against plasma glucose; searches for that comparison found no such result in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.74)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The lag time between blood and subcutaneous tissue glucose concentrations causes further inaccuracies for CGM devices.

    “The lag time between blood and subcutaneous tissue glucose concentrations cause further inaccuracies for CGM devices.79–80”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Keenan, D. B., Mastrototaro, J. J., Voskanyan, G., & Steil, G. M.
Affiliations
  • Medtronic (United States) (US)
  • Boston Children's Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Keenan, D. Barry
Venue
Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology
Published
2009-09
Volume
3
Issue
5
Pages
1207-1214
ISSN
1932-2968 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2127835324
Cited by
198
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 12
FWCI
6.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Electrochemical sensors and biosensors
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Pancreatic function and diabetes
Keywords
continuous glucose monitoring, interstitial glucose, sensor calibration, digital filters, hypoglycemic clamp, hyperglycemic clamp, meal response, diabetes management
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Blood Glucose, Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted, Dietary Carbohydrates, Equipment Design, Humans, Predictive Value of Tests, Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted, Time Factors, Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring, Reproducibility of Results, Artifacts, Diagnostic Equipment, Extracellular Fluid, Electrochemical Techniques

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