ArticleJournal of diabetes science and technology2022
A Prospective Multicenter Clinical Performance Evaluation of the C-CGM System.
Article in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2022. 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Towards Standardization of CGM Performance Studies: The QUSS-CGM Questionnaire for Assessing User Satisfaction.Patient related outcome measures · 2025Article
- Approaches of wearable and implantable biosensor towards of developing in precision medicine.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Review
- Evaluating the precision and reliability of real-time continuous glucose monitoring systems in ambulatory settings: a systematic review.Therapeutic advances in endocrinology and metabolism · 2024Review
- Clinical Performance Evaluation of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems: A Scoping Review and Recommendations for Reporting.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2023Article
- Reply to Freckmann et al. Comment on "Hochfellner et al. Accuracy Assessment of the GlucoMenBiosensors · 2023Article
- 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
- Diabetes Technology Meeting 2020.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundContinuous glucose monitors (CGMs) have had a significant impact on the management of diabetes mellitus. We present the results of a multinational evaluation of the Cascade CGM ("C-CGM") over 14 days of in-clinic and home use.
methodEach of the 57 enrolled type 1 diabetes mellitus and type 2 diabetes mellitus subjects wore 2 C-CGMs on the abdomen for 14 days. One part of the evaluation was the performance versus reference glucose values generated for 12 -hour in-clinic sessions on days 1, 4, 7, 10, and 14. Glucose blood samples were drawn every 15 minutes and analyzed with the Yellow Spring Instruments (YSI) 2300 glucose analyzer. The performance assessment on in-clinic days was based on paired YSI/CGM data points and on home-use days was based on paired fingerstick BGM (blood glucose monitoring)/CGM data points.
resultsA total of 17 823 CGM/YSI data points during in-clinic use was analyzed. The mean absolute relative difference for glucose values between 100 and 400 mg/dL (MARD) and mean absolute difference for values between 40 and 100 mg/dL (MAD) were 11.5% and 15.1 mg/dL, respectively. The system accuracy during home use was 12.7% and 15 mg/dL for MARD and MAD, respectively. There were no serious adverse events or infectious complications reported. A modified algorithm "Hybrid Algorithm" was used in a prospective analysis of the in-clinic data, resulting in a MARD of 9.9% and MAD of 14.5 mg/dL.
conclusionsThe performance of the C-CGM device over 14 days meets the safety and efficacy standards of CGM systems for managing blood glucose levels in people with diabetes. This was further confirmed when the C-CGM system was given approval for CE Mark in October 2019.
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.