Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28569076›Full record

ArticleJournal of diabetes science and technology2017

Clinical Impact of Blood Glucose Monitoring Accuracy: An In-Silico Study.

Enrique Campos-Náñez, Kurt Fortwaengler, Marc D Breton

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Diabetes Technological Revolution: Winners and Losers?Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2018
    Article
  9. Article
  10. The Financial Impact of Inaccurate Blood Glucose Monitoring Systems.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2018
    Article
  11. Article
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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Enrique Campos-Náñez1 Center for Diabetes Technology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Kurt Fortwaengler2 Roche Diabetes Care, Mannheim, Germany.
Marc D Breton1 Center for Diabetes Technology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
University of Virginia · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients with diabetes rely on blood glucose (BG) monitoring devices to manage their condition. As some self-monitoring devices are becoming more and more accurate, it becomes critical to understand the relationship between system accuracy and clinical outcomes, and the potential benefits of analytical accuracy.

methodsWe conducted a 30-day in-silico study in type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) patients using continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) therapy and a variety of BG meters, using the FDA-approved University of Virginia (UVA)/Padova Type 1 Simulator. We used simulated meter models derived from the published characteristics of 43 commercial meters. By controlling random events in each parallel run, we isolated the differences in clinical performance that are directly associated with the meter characteristics.

resultsA meter's systematic bias has a significant and inverse effect on HbA1c ( P < .01), while also affecting the number of severe hypoglycemia events. On the other hand, error, defined as the fraction of measurements beyond 5% of the true value, is a predictor of severe hypoglycemia events ( P < .01), but in the absence of bias has a nonsignificant effect on average glycemia (HbA1c). Both bias and error have significant effects on total daily insulin (TDI) and the number of necessary glucose measurements per day ( P < .01). Furthermore, these relationships can be accurately modeled using linear regression on meter bias and error.

conclusionsTwo components of meter accuracy, bias and error, clearly affect clinical outcomes. While error has little effect on HbA1c, it tends to increase episodes of severe hypoglycemia. Meter bias has significant effects on all considered metrics: a positive systemic bias will reduce HbA1c, but increase the number of severe hypoglycemia attacks, TDI use, and number of fingersticks per day.

Indexed as

Computer SimulationModels, BiologicalTransducersBiomarkersBlood GlucoseBlood Glucose Self-MonitoringDiabetes Mellitus, Type 1Equipment DesignGlycated HemoglobinHumansHypoglycemiaHypoglycemic AgentsInfusions, SubcutaneousInsulinInsulin Infusion SystemsLinear ModelsBiomarkersBlood GlucoseGlycated Hemoglobinhemoglobin A1c protein, humanHypoglycemic AgentsInsulinaccuracyblood glucose metersclinical outcomes

Identifiers

PMID28569076
PMCPMC5951046
OpenAlexW2620577907

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.