ArticleBiosensors2018
Differences Between Flash Glucose Monitor and Fingerprick Measurements.
Article in Biosensors, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy of telemedicine on glycaemic control in nursing home residents with type 2 diabetes on basal-bolus insulin therapy: A randomised controlled trial.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2026Trial
- Analytical Performance of the FreeStyle Libre 2 Glucose Sensor in Healthy Male Adults.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Clinical Performance Evaluation of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems: A Scoping Review and Recommendations for Reporting.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2023Article
- Current Technologies for Managing Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus and Their Impact on Quality of Life-A Narrative Review.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Performance of the FreeStyle Libre Flash Glucose Monitoring System during an Oral Glucose Tolerance Test and Exercise in Healthy Adolescents.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Evaluation of a Continuous Blood Glucose Monitor: A Novel and Non-Invasive Wearable Using Bioimpedance Technology.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2023Observational
- The effect of steroid injection into the shoulder on glycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes.JSES international · 2022Article
- Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Healthy Adults-Possible Applications in Health Care, Wellness, and Sports.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Cost-Effectiveness of Flash Glucose Monitoring for the Management of Patients with Type 1 and Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in China.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2021Article
- Assessment of the accuracy of an intermittent-scanning continuous glucose monitoring device in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus undergoing hemodialysis (AIDT2H) study.Therapeutic apheresis and dialysis : official peer-reviewed journal of the International Society for Apheresis, the Japanese Society for Apheresis, the Japanese Society for Dialysis Therapy · 2021Observational
- Accuracy of Flash Glucose Monitoring During Postprandial Rest and Different Walking Conditions in Overweight or Obese Young Adults.Frontiers in physiology · 2021Article
- Evaluation of continuous flash glucose monitoring in a pediatric ICU setting.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2020Article
- Digital Resilience Biomarkers for Personalized Health Maintenance and Disease Prevention.Frontiers in digital health · 2020Review
- Acceptability of the FreeStyle Libre Flash Glucose Monitoring System: The Experience of Young Patients With Type 1 Diabetes.Clinical medicine insights. Endocrinology and diabetes · 2020Article
- Development of an Error Model for a Factory-Calibrated Continuous Glucose Monitoring Sensor with 10-Day Lifetime.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
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
Abstract
Freestyle Libre (FL) is a factory calibrated Flash Glucose Monitor (FGM). We investigated Mean Absolute Relative Difference (MARD) between Self Monitoring of Blood Glucose (SMBG) and FL measurements in the first day of sensor wear in 39 subjects with Type 1 diabetes. The overall MARD was 12.3%, while the individual MARDs ranged from 4% to 25%. Five participants had a MARD ≥ 20%. We estimated bias and lag between the FL and SMBG measurements. The estimated biases range from -1.8 mmol / L to 1.4 mmol / L , and lags range from 2 min to 24 min . Bias is identified as a main cause of poor individual MARDs. The biases seem to persist in days 2⁻7 of sensor usage. All cases of MARD ≥ 20% in the first day are eliminated by bias correction, and overall MARD is reduced from 12.3% to 9.2%, indicating that adding support for voluntary user-supplied bias correction in the FL could improve its performance.
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.