ArticleJournal of diabetes science and technology2014
The surveillance error grid.
Article in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04569240 (Accuracy of the Dexcom G6 Continuous Glucose Monitoring System Following Cardiac Surgery), which is not on this map. Cited by 92 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Accuracy of the Dexcom G6 Continuous Glucose Monitoring System Following Cardiac Surgery
Who cites it
92 citing papers in PubMed.
- A digital twin-enhanced decision support system improves time-in-range in type 1 diabetes: a randomized clinical trial.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- Performance of a new real-time continuous glucose monitoring system: A multicenter pilot study.Journal of diabetes investigation · 2018Trial
- Stability, Accuracy, and Risk Assessment of a Novel Subcutaneous Glucose Sensor.Diabetes technology & therapeutics · 2017Trial
- Impact of Ascorbic Acid and Exercise on Accuracy of a Glucose Monitoring System with GDH-FAD Technology in Adult Patients with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: A Double-Blinded, Randomized Trial.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2026Article
- Trends in accuracy management of continuous glucose monitoring systems.Diabetology international · 2026Review
- Lost in Transcription: Frequency of Inaccurate Manually Documented Point-of-Care Blood Glucose and Ketone Measures in Hospital.Endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence for Blood Glucose Level Prediction in Type 1 Diabetes: Methods, Evaluation, and Emerging Advances.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Personalised Blood Glucose Time Series Forecasting in Type 1 Diabetes: Deep Collaborative Adversarial Learning.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Article
- Feasibility and accuracy of continuous glucose monitoring in surgical intensive care unit patients : a single-center pilot study in South Korea.Acute and critical care · 2026Article
- Use of the GTT@home Oral Glucose Tolerance Test Kit in Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: Performance Evaluation Study.JMIR diabetes · 2026Article
- Assessment of analytical performance of a glucometer in Indian adults at a tertiary care hospital.BMC endocrine disorders · 2025Article
- Continuous Glucose Monitoring-Guided Insulin Infusion in Critically Ill Patients Promotes Safety, Improves Time Efficiency, and Enhances Provider Satisfaction.Endocrine practice : official journal of the American College of Endocrinology and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists · 2025Article
- Article
- Continuous interstitial glucose monitoring in diabetic and non-diabetic critically ill patients is simple and accurate: comparison with venous, arterial and capillary glucose measurements.Acta diabetologica · 2025Observational
- Racial disparities in continuous glucose monitoring-based 60-min glucose predictions among people with type 1 diabetes.PLOS digital health · 2025Article
- The Diabetes Technology Society Error Grid and Trend Accuracy Matrix for Glucose Monitors.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2024Article
- Data-driven blood glucose level prediction in type 1 diabetes: a comprehensive comparative analysis.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Continuous Glucose Deviation Interval and Variability Analysis (CG-DIVA): A Novel Approach for the Statistical Accuracy Assessment of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2024Article
- Accuracy and Feasibility of Real-time Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Critically Ill Patients After Abdominal Surgery and Solid Organ Transplantation.Diabetes care · 2024Article
- Comparison of Point Accuracy Between Two Widely Used Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2024Article
32 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Currently used error grids for assessing clinical accuracy of blood glucose monitors are based on out-of-date medical practices. Error grids have not been widely embraced by regulatory agencies for clearance of monitors, but this type of tool could be useful for surveillance of the performance of cleared products. Diabetes Technology Society together with representatives from the Food and Drug Administration, the American Diabetes Association, the Endocrine Society, and the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation, and representatives of academia, industry, and government, have developed a new error grid, called the surveillance error grid (SEG) as a tool to assess the degree of clinical risk from inaccurate blood glucose (BG) monitors. A total of 206 diabetes clinicians were surveyed about the clinical risk of errors of measured BG levels by a monitor. The impact of such errors on 4 patient scenarios was surveyed. Each monitor/reference data pair was scored and color-coded on a graph per its average risk rating. Using modeled data representative of the accuracy of contemporary meters, the relationships between clinical risk and monitor error were calculated for the Clarke error grid (CEG), Parkes error grid (PEG), and SEG. SEG action boundaries were consistent across scenarios, regardless of whether the patient was type 1 or type 2 or using insulin or not. No significant differences were noted between responses of adult/pediatric or 4 types of clinicians. Although small specific differences in risk boundaries between US and non-US clinicians were noted, the panel felt they did not justify separate grids for these 2 types of clinicians. The data points of the SEG were classified in 15 zones according to their assigned level of risk, which allowed for comparisons with the classic CEG and PEG. Modeled glucose monitor data with realistic self-monitoring of blood glucose errors derived from meter testing experiments plotted on the SEG when compared to the data plotted on the CEG and PEG produced risk estimates that were more granular and reflective of a continuously increasing risk scale. The SEG is a modern metric for clinical risk assessments of BG monitor errors that assigns a unique risk score to each monitor data point when compared to a reference value. The SEG allows the clinical accuracy of a BG monitor to be portrayed in many ways, including as the percentages of data points falling into custom-defined risk zones. For modeled data the SEG, compared with the CEG and PEG, allows greater precision for quantifying risk, especially when the risks are low. This tool will be useful to allow regulators and manufacturers to monitor and evaluate glucose monitor performance in their surveillance programs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.