Cited by 46Diabetes Management and ResearchScientific Measurement and Uncertainty EvaluationClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control

Limits to the Evaluation of the Accuracy of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems by Clinical Trials

Open access
Schrangl, Patrick, Reiterer, Florian, Heinemann, Lutz, Freckmann, Guido, Del Re, Luigi·2018·Biosensors

Abstract

Systems for continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) are evolving quickly, and the data obtained are expected to become the basis for clinical decisions for many patients with diabetes in the near future. However, this requires that their analytical accuracy is sufficient. This accuracy is usually determined with clinical studies by comparing the data obtained by the given CGM system with blood glucose (BG) point measurements made with a so-called reference method. The latter is assumed to indicate the correct value of the target quantity. Unfortunately, due to the nature of the clinical trials and the approach used, such a comparison is subject to several effects which may lead to misleading results. While some reasons for the differences between the values obtained with CGM and BG point measurements are relatively well-known (e.g., measurement in different body compartments), others related to the clinical study protocols are less visible, but also quite important. In this review, we present a general picture of the topic as well as tools which allow to correct or at least to estimate the uncertainty of measures of CGM system performance.

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 · 10.3390/bios8020050

Cites

60 of 60 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?

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: 2

  1. [61]Johnson R. Wichern D. Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA 2007
  2. [64]Silverman B. Density Estimation for Statistics and Data Analysis Chapman & Hall/CRC Monographs on Statistics & Applied Probability Taylor & Francis/CRC Press Boca Raton, FL, USA 1986

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schrangl, P., Reiterer, F., Heinemann, L., Freckmann, G., & Del Re, L.
Affiliations
  • Johannes Kepler University of Linz (AT)
  • Science & Co, 41462 Neuss, Germany
  • Universität Ulm (DE)
  • Institute for Design and Control of Mechatronical Systems, Johannes Kepler University Linz, 4040 Linz, Austria
Corresponding author
Reiterer, Florian
Venue
Biosensors
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2018-05-18
Volume
8
Issue
2
Pages
50
ISSN
2079-6374 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2804169921
Cited by
46
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 1
FWCI
4.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Biosensors (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • OPen Access Repositorium der Universität Ulm (OPARU) (Ulm University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Universität Ulm, Kommunikations- und Informationszentrum (kiz) (cc-by)
Funders
Roche Diabetes Care
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Scientific Measurement and Uncertainty Evaluation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
Keywords
continuous glucose monitoring, analytical accuracy, reference method, blood glucose, clinical trial design, measurement uncertainty, diabetes mellitus
MeSH terms
Clinical Trials as Topic, Glucose, Monitoring, Ambulatory

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