Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28243449›Full record

ArticleBMJ open diabetes research & care2017

Performance of the FreeStyle Libre Flash glucose monitoring system in patients with type 1 and 2 diabetes mellitus.

M J Fokkert, P R van Dijk, M A Edens, S Abbes, D de Jong, R J Slingerland, H J G Bilo

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open diabetes research & care, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 95 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
95citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
17.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

95 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 206 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

35 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

M J FokkertDepartment of Clinical Chemistry , Isala , Zwolle , The Netherlands.
P R van DijkIsala, Diabetes Center, Zwolle, The Netherlands; Department of Internal Medicine, Isala, Zwolle, The Netherlands.
M A EdensDepartment Innovation and Science , Isala , Zwolle , The Netherlands.
S AbbesDepartment of Clinical Chemistry , Isala , Zwolle , The Netherlands.
D de JongDepartment Innovation and Science , Isala , Zwolle , The Netherlands.
R J SlingerlandDepartment of Clinical Chemistry , Isala , Zwolle , The Netherlands.
H J G BiloIsala, Diabetes Center, Zwolle, The Netherlands; Department of Internal Medicine, Isala, Zwolle, The Netherlands; Department of Internal Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Isala · NLUniversity Medical Center Groningen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate the performance of the FreeStyle Libre Flash continuous glucose monitoring (FSL-CGM) system against established central laboratory methods. RESEARCH DESIGN AND

methods20 subjects (8 type 1 diabetes mellitus, 12 type 2 diabetes mellitus) were analyzed. FSL-CGM sensor measurements (inserted in arm and abdomen) were compared with capillary blood glucose results analyzed with StatStrip as semigold standard. The glucose response after a standardized oral glucose load was measured by FSL-CGM and capillary samples analyzed by perchloric acid hexokinase (PCA-HK) method, StatStrip and FSL test strip (FSLC), and a commonly used CGM system (iPro2).

resultsFSL-CGM arm sensor readings showed 85.5% of paired readings falling within Clarke Error Grid (ISO 15197:2013) zone A when compared with StatStrip. For FSL-CGM abdomen and FSLC, these percentages were 64% and 98%, respectively. The overall correlation of FSL-CGM in the arm and the StatStrip indicates a performance with lower results with the FSL-CGM in the arm than expected based on the StatStrip in the lower glucose ranges, and higher results than expected in the higher ranges. Following a standardized glucose load, a slower rise in glucose level was observed for FSL-CGM arm as compared with PCA-HK, StatStrip, FSLC, and iPro2 during the first 45-60 min after glucose load ingestion.

conclusionsCertain matters need attention while using the FSL-CGM in daily life including the observed lower values in the lower ranges, and the underestimation of the effect of a meal on glucose response. These effects of such deviations can partly be overcome by optimizing the available user instructions. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: TC5348; results.

Indexed as

Blood Glucose Self-MonitoringContinuous Glucose MonitoringEndocrinology DiabetesGlucose Control

Identifiers

PMID28243449
PMCPMC5316912
OpenAlexW2587847154

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.