ReviewJournal of diabetes science and technology2017
How Much Accuracy of Interstitial Glucose Measurement Is Enough? Is There a Need for New Evidence?
Review in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Measures of Accuracy for Continuous Glucose Monitoring and Blood Glucose Monitoring Devices.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2019Review
- Measurement Performance of Two Continuous Tissue Glucose Monitoring Systems Intended for Replacement of Blood Glucose Monitoring.Diabetes technology & therapeutics · 2018Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This analytical comment discusses what standards are needed for the evaluation of the accuracy of glucose measurement systems continuously measuring glucose in the interstitial fluid. Since accuracy standards for continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)/flash glucose monitoring (FGM) systems are currently based on modeling studies or consensus of experts, we raised the question whether non-inferiority trials evaluating the safety and efficacy of CGM/FGM measurements compared to capillary blood glucose measurement with point-of-care devices could help to establish clarity about the needed accuracy standards of CGM/FGM. Such trials could also support the replacement of capillary blood glucose measurements by modern CGM/FGM systems.
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.