Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36407313›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2022

The hypoglycaemia error grid: A UK-wide consensus on CGM accuracy assessment in hyperinsulinism.

Chris Worth, Mark J Dunne, Maria Salomon-Estebanez, Simon Harper, Paul W Nutter, Antonia Dastamani, Senthil Senniappan, Indraneel Banerjee

Open access · goldAbstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Approach to the Neonate With Hypoglycemia.The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism · 2024
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Chris WorthDepartment of Paediatric Endocrinology, Royal Manchester Children's Hospital, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Mark J DunneFaculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Maria Salomon-EstebanezDepartment of Paediatric Endocrinology, Royal Manchester Children's Hospital, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Simon HarperDepartment of Computer Science, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Paul W NutterDepartment of Computer Science, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Antonia DastamaniDepartment of Paediatric Endocrinology, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, London, United Kingdom.
Senthil SenniappanDepartment of Paediatric Endocrinology, Alder Hey Children's Hospital, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Indraneel BanerjeeDepartment of Paediatric Endocrinology, Royal Manchester Children's Hospital, Manchester, United Kingdom.
University of Manchester · GBGreat Ormond Street Hospital · GBRoyal Manchester Children's Hospital · GBUniversity of Liverpool · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) is gaining in popularity for patients with paediatric hypoglycaemia disorders such as Congenital Hyperinsulinism (CHI), but no standard measures of accuracy or associated clinical risk are available. The small number of prior assessments of CGM accuracy in CHI have thus been incomplete. We aimed to develop a novel Hypoglycaemia Error Grid (HEG) for CGM assessment for those with CHI based on expert consensus opinion applied to a large paired (CGM/blood glucose) dataset. Design and methods: Paediatric endocrinology consultants regularly managing CHI in the two UK centres of excellence were asked to complete a questionnaire regarding glucose cutoffs and associated anticipated risks of CGM errors in a hypothetical model. Collated information was utilised to mathematically generate the HEG which was then approved by expert, consensus opinion. Ten patients with CHI underwent 12 weeks of monitoring with a Dexcom G6 CGM and self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) with a Contour Next One glucometer to test application of the HEG and provide an assessment of accuracy for those with CHI. Results: CGM performance was suboptimal, based on 1441 paired values of CGM and SMBG showing Mean Absolute Relative Difference (MARD) of 19.3% and hypoglycaemia (glucose <3.5mmol/L (63mg/dL)) sensitivity of only 45%. The HEG provided clinical context to CGM errors with 15% classified as moderate risk by expert consensus when data was restricted to that of practical use. This provides a contrasting risk profile from existing diabetes error grids, reinforcing its utility in the clinical assessment of CGM accuracy in hypoglycaemia. Conclusions: The Hypoglycaemia Error Grid, based on UK expert consensus opinion has demonstrated inadequate accuracy of CGM to recommend as a standalone tool for routine clinical use. However, suboptimal accuracy of CGM relative to SMBG does not detract from alternative uses of CGM in this patient group, such as use as a digital phenotyping tool. The HEG is freely available on GitHub for use by other researchers to assess accuracy in their patient populations and validate these findings.

Indexed as

Congenital HyperinsulinismDiabetes Mellitus, Type 1Blood GlucoseBlood Glucose Self-MonitoringChildGlucoseHumansUnited KingdomBlood GlucoseGlucoseaccuracycontinuous glucose monitoring (CGM)error gridhyperinsulinismhypoglycaemia

Identifiers

PMID36407313
PMCPMC9666389
OpenAlexW4308126012

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.