CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 477Diabetes Management and ResearchElectrochemical sensors and biosensorsHyperglycemia and glycemic control in critically ill and hospitalized patients

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 81 of the 81 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring Sensors for Diabetes Management: A Review of Technologies and Applications

Open access
Cappon, Giacomo, Vettoretti, Martina, Sparacino, Giovanni, Facchinetti, Andrea·2019·Diabetes & Metabolism Journal
DOI 10.4093/dmj.2019.0121PMC PMC6712232
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

By providing blood glucose (BG) concentration measurements in an almost continuous-time fashion for several consecutive days, wearable minimally-invasive continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) sensors are revolutionizing diabetes management, and are becoming an increasingly adopted technology especially for diabetic individuals requiring insulin administrations. Indeed, by providing glucose real-time insights of BG dynamics and trend, and being equipped with visual and acoustic alarms for hypo- and hyperglycemia, CGM devices have been proved to improve safety and effectiveness of diabetes therapy, reduce hypoglycemia incidence and duration, and decrease glycemic variability. Furthermore, the real-time availability of BG values has been stimulating the realization of new tools to provide patients with decision support to improve insulin dosage tuning and infusion. The aim of this paper is to offer an overview of current literature and future possible developments regarding CGM technologies and applications. In particular, first, we outline the technological evolution of CGM devices through the last 20 years. Then, we discuss about the current use of CGM sensors from patients affected by diabetes, and, we report some works proving the beneficial impact provided by the adoption of CGM. Finally, we review some recent advanced applications for diabetes treatment based on CGM sensors.

Overview

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 · 10.4093/dmj.2019.0121

Cites

81 of 81 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 (A) Representative blood glucose (BG) monitoring data obtainable with self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG; in green) and with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM; in blue). Dotted circles denote hyperglycemic and hypoglycemic episodes that, using only SMBG measurements, are not detectable. (B) Assessment of the accuracy of a CGM sensor can be performed by comparing Yellow Spring Instruments Inc. (YSI) measurements (red stars) versus Dexcom G4 Platinum CGM (black solid line) measurements. For example, mean absolute relative difference can be calculated as the average ratio between the absolute difference between the CGM measurements and the YSI over the YSI.
Fig. 1 (A) Representative blood glucose (BG) monitoring data obtainable with self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG; in green) and with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM; in blue). Dotted circles denote hyperglycemic and hypoglycemic episodes that, using only SMBG measurements, are not detectable. (B) Assessment of the accuracy of a CGM sensor can be performed by comparing Yellow Spring Instruments Inc. (YSI) measurements (red stars) versus Dexcom G4 Platinum CGM (black solid line) measurements. For example, mean absolute relative difference can be calculated as the average ratio between the absolute difference between the CGM measurements and the YSI over the YSI.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 Accuracy evolution of state-of-the-art CGM systems through years. From the left: Medtronic Enlite, Abbott Freestyle Navigator, Dexcom G4 Platinum, Abbott Freestyle Libre, Dexcom G4 Platinum with 505 software, Senseonics Eversense, Dexcom G5, Dexcom G6. MARD, mean absolute relative difference; SMBG, self-monitoring of blood glucose.
Fig. 2 Accuracy evolution of state-of-the-art CGM systems through years. From the left: Medtronic Enlite, Abbott Freestyle Navigator, Dexcom G4 Platinum, Abbott Freestyle Libre, Dexcom G4 Platinum with 505 software, Senseonics Eversense, Dexcom G5, Dexcom G6. MARD, mean absolute relative difference; SMBG, self-monitoring of blood glucose.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Show all 81 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Gashgari, 2016, Stud Health Technol Inform, 226, 41
  2. Herrero, 2016, PEPPER: Patient empowerment through predictive personalized decision support, 8

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 477

Related

Metadata

Authors
Cappon, G., Vettoretti, M., Sparacino, G., & Facchinetti, A.
Affiliations
University of Padua (IT)
Corresponding author
Facchinetti, Andrea
ORCID
Venue
Diabetes & Metabolism Journal
Publisher
Korean Diabetes Association
Published
2019
Volume
43
Issue
4
Pages
383
ISSN
  • 2233-6079 (ISSN-L)
  • 2233-6087
DOI
10.4093/dmj.2019.0121
PMC
PMC6712232
OpenAlex
W2964434942
Cited by
477
References
81
Citations by year
2026: 70 · 2025: 105 · 2024: 65 · 2023: 81 · 2022: 65 · 2021: 48 · 2020: 38 · 2019: 4
FWCI
5.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Diabetes & Metabolism Journal (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Padua Research Archive (University of Padova) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Analytical Chemistry › Electrochemical sensors and biosensors
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Hyperglycemia and glycemic control in critically ill and hospitalized patients
Keywords
continuous glucose monitoring, diabetes management, blood glucose monitoring, hypoglycemia, glycemic variability, insulin dose, insulin infusion, decision support, wearable sensors
MeSH terms
Wearable Electronic Devices, Adolescent, Adult, Algorithms, Blood Glucose, Child, Child, Preschool, Decision Support Systems, Management, Diabetes Mellitus, Female, Humans, Hyperglycemia, Hypoglycemia, Insulin Infusion Systems, Male, Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring, Young Adult

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