Cited by 202Diabetes Management and ResearchClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlHyperglycemia and glycemic control in critically ill and hospitalized patients

Measures of Accuracy for Continuous Glucose Monitoring and Blood Glucose Monitoring Devices

Open access
Freckmann, Guido, Pleus, Stefan, Grady, Mike, Setford, Steven, Levy, Brian·2019·Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology

Abstract

Currently, patients with diabetes may choose between two major types of system for glucose measurement: blood glucose monitoring (BGM) systems measuring glucose within capillary blood and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems measuring glucose within interstitial fluid. Although BGM and CGM systems offer different functionality, both types of system are intended to help users achieve improved glucose control. Another area in which BGM and CGM systems differ is measurement accuracy. In the literature, BGM system accuracy is assessed mainly according to ISO 15197:2013 accuracy requirements, whereas CGM accuracy has hitherto mainly been assessed by MARD, although often results from additional analyses such as bias analysis or error grid analysis are provided. The intention of this review is to provide a comparison of different approaches used to determine the accuracy of BGM and CGM systems and factors that should be considered when using these different measures of accuracy to make comparisons between the analytical performance (ie, accuracy) of BGM and CGM systems. In addition, real-world implications of accuracy and its relevance are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1932296818812062

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Freckmann, G., Pleus, S., Grady, M., Setford, S., & Levy, B.
Affiliations
  • Universität Ulm (DE)
  • LifeScan Scotland Ltd, Inverness, Scotland, UK
  • LifeScan Inc, Wayne, PA, USA
Corresponding author
Pleus, Stefan
Venue
Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology
Published
2018-11-19
Volume
13
Issue
3
Pages
575-583
ISSN
1932-2968 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2900697170
Cited by
202
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 41 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 1
FWCI
1.08
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
LifeScan Scotland Ltd.
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Hyperglycemia and glycemic control in critically ill and hospitalized patients
Keywords
continuous glucose monitoring, blood glucose monitoring, measurement accuracy, accuracy measures, mean absolute relative difference, ISO 15197, bias assessment, error grid analysis, diabetes mellitus, capillary blood glucose, interstitial glucose, analytical performance comparison
MeSH terms
Blood Glucose, Diabetes Mellitus, Humans, Sensitivity and Specificity, United States, United States Food and Drug Administration, Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring, Reproducibility of Results, Device Approval, Guideline Adherence, Medical Device Legislation

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