ArticleJournal of diabetes research2017
Assessing the Performance of a Noninvasive Glucose Monitor in People with Type 2 Diabetes with Different Demographic Profiles.
Article in Journal of diabetes research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advancing Diabetic Care Through Non-Invasive Glucose Monitoring Using Optical Sensors and IoT Technologies.F1000Research · 2026Article
- Noninvasive Glucose Sensing In Vivo.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Patent analysis of digital sensors for continuous glucose monitoring.Frontiers in public health · 2023Review
- Technologies for Diabetes Self-Monitoring: A Scoping Review and Assessment Using the REASSURED Criteria.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2022Article
- Products for Monitoring Glucose Levels in the Human Body With Noninvasive Optical, Noninvasive Fluid Sampling, or Minimally Invasive Technologies.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2022Review
- Determination of Electroacupuncture Effects on circRNAs in Plasma Exosomes in Diabetic Mice: An RNA-Sequencing Approach.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2019Article
- The accuracy of a non-invasive glucose monitoring device does not depend on clinical characteristics of people with type 2 diabetes mellitus.Journal of drug assessment · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNoninvasive glucose-monitoring devices represent an exciting frontier in diabetes research. GlucoTrack® is a noninvasive device that indirectly measures glucose fluctuation in the earlobe tissue. However, GlucoTrack measurements may be susceptible to effects of quasi-stable factors that may be affected by demographic profiles. The current study, thus, examined device performances in people with type 2 diabetes with different demographic profiles, focusing on age, gender, body mass, and whether the earlobe is pierced. MATERIALS AND
methodsClinical trials were conducted on 172 type 2 adult diabetic subjects. Device performance was clinically evaluated using the Clarke error grid (CEG) analysis and statistically assessed using absolute relative difference (ARD).
resultsCEG analysis revealed that 97.6% of glucose readings were within the clinically acceptable CEG A + B zones. Mean and median ARD were 22.3% and 18.8%, respectively. Likelihood ratio and parametric bootstrap tests revealed that there were no significant differences in ARD values across age, gender, body mass, and whether the earlobe was pierced, indicating that the accuracy of GlucoTrack remains consistent across the tested demographic profiles.
conclusionsOur results suggest that GlucoTrack performance does not depend on demographic profiles of its users and it is thus suitable for various people with type 2 diabetes.
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.