Cited by 152Diabetes Management and ResearchElectrochemical sensors and biosensorsHyperglycemia and glycemic control in critically ill and hospitalized patients

Use of Subcutaneous Interstitial Fluid Glucose to Estimate Blood Glucose: Revisiting Delay and Sensor Offset

Open access
Rebrin, Kerstin, Sheppard, Norman F., Steil, Garry M.·2010·Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology

Abstract

Background: Estimates for delays in the interstitial fluid (ISF) glucose response to changes in blood glucose (BG) differ substantially among research groups. We review these findings along with arguments that continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices used to measure ISF delay contribute to the variability. We consider the impact of the ISF delay and review approaches to correct for it, including strategies pursued by the manufacturers of these devices. The focus on how the manufacturers have approached the problem is motivated by the observation that clinicians and researchers are often unaware of how the existing CGM devices process the ISF glucose signal. Methods: Numerous models and simulations were used to illustrate problems related to measurement and correction of ISF glucose delay. Results: We find that (1) there is no evidence that the true physiologic ISF glucose delay is longer than 5–10 min and that the values longer than this can be explained by delays in CGM filtering routines; (2) the primary impact of the true ISF delay is on sensor calibration algorithms, making it difficult to estimate calibration factors and offset (OS) currents; (3) inaccurate estimates of the sensor OS current result in overestimation of sensor glucose at low values, making it difficult to detect hypoglycemia; (4) many device companies introduce nonlinear components into their filters, which can be expected to confound attempts by investigators to reconstruct BG using linear deconvolution; and (5) algorithms advocated by academic groups are seldom compared to algorithms pursued by industry, making it difficult to ascertain their value. Conclusions: The absence of any direct comparisons between existing and new algorithms for correcting ISF delay and sensor OS current is, in part, due to the difficulty in extracting relevant details from industry patents and/or extracting unfiltered sensor signals from industry products. The model simulation environment, where all aspects of the signal can be derived, may be more appropriate for developing new filtering and calibration strategies. Nevertheless, clinicians, academic researchers, and the industry would benefit from collaborating when evaluating those strategies.

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 · 10.1177/193229681000400507

Cites

29 of 29 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?

  • Under normal conditions, the physiological lag time between blood and interstitial fluid glucose is between 5 and 10 minutes.

    “Under normal conditions (i.e., conditions in which glucose levels are not rapidly changing from activities such as exercising or eating), the physiological lag time between blood and interstitial fluid glucose ranges between 5 and 10 min.78,81”

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

6 of the 35 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rebrin, K., Sheppard, N. F., & Steil, G. M.
Affiliations
  • MicroCHIPS, Inc., Bedford, Massachusetts
  • Bedford Research Foundation (US)
  • Boston Children's Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Steil, Garry M.
Venue
Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology
Published
2010-09
Volume
4
Issue
5
Pages
1087-1098
ISSN
1932-2968 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2028294547
Cited by
152
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 5
FWCI
6.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01HL88448, R01HL088448)
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 › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Hyperglycemia and glycemic control in critically ill and hospitalized patients
Keywords
interstitial glucose, blood glucose estimation, sensor offset, continuous glucose monitoring, sensor calibration, hypoglycemia detection, nonlinear filtering, deconvolution
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Animals, Blood Glucose, Calibration, Feasibility Studies, Glucose, Humans, Models, Biological, Monitoring, Physiologic, Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted, Time Factors, United States, United States Food and Drug Administration, Biosensing Techniques, Extracellular Fluid

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