ArticleJournal of diabetes science and technology2024
Improving the Bias of Comparator Methods in Analytical Performance Assessments Through Recalibration.
Article in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Continuous glucose monitoring as a tool in early-stage type 1 diabetes.Diabetologia · 2026Review
- Review
- Consensus Considerations and Good Practice Points for Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems in Hospital Settings.Diabetes care · 2024Review
- Performance Assessment of Three Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2024Article
- Head-to-Head Evaluation of Continuous Glucose Monitoring and Automated Insulin Delivery Systems: Why are They not Used More Systematically?Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2024Article
- Even Head-to-Head Comparison Studies of Continuous Glucose Monitoring System Performance Can be Biased.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2024Article
- User Performance Evaluation and System Accuracy Assessment of Four Blood Glucose Monitoring Systems With Color Coding of Measurement Results.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2024Article
- Clinical Performance Evaluation of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems: A Scoping Review and Recommendations for Reporting.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2023Article
- A Newly FDA-Cleared Benchtop Glucose Analyzer Heralds the Dawn of the Post-YSI 2300 Era.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn analytical performance studies, the choice of comparator method plays an important role, as studies have shown that there exist relevant systematic differences (bias) between laboratory analyzers. The feasibility of retrospective recalibration of measurement results through comparison with methods or materials of higher metrological order to minimize bias was therefore assessed.
methodExisting data from performance studies of continuous and blood glucose monitoring systems were retrospectively analyzed. Comparison with a higher-order method was performed for two different data sets. In both cases, subject samples were measured, and a subset was also measured on a higher-order method. Recalibration based on higher-order materials (standard reference material [SRM]) was conducted for two different data sets containing results from SRM and subject samples. Linear regression analysis was performed for each device separately. Resulting equations were applied to the respective complete data set of subject samples. Bias between devices in a data set across all subject samples was assessed before and after recalibration.
resultsBias between devices was reduced from -3.6% to +0.6% in one data set and from +11.0% to +0.3% in the other by recalibration based on higher-order method. Using higher-order materials, bias was also reduced by recalibration, but mixed results were found: Bias was reduced from -3.1% to -0.1% in one data set and from -4.3% to -2.7% in the other.
conclusionsRecalibration did lead to a decrease in bias and thus can reduce the impact of the choice of comparator method. The procedure should be verified in a prospectively designed setting.
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.