Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40218498›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2025

Dynamic Interference Testing-Unexpected Results Obtained with the Abbott Libre 2 and Dexcom G6 Continuous Glucose Monitoring Devices.

Hendrick Jensch, Steven Setford, Nicole Thomé, Geethan Srikanthamoorthy, Lea Weingärtner, Mike Grady, Elizabeth Holt, Andreas Pfützner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Hendrick JenschPfützner Science & Health Institute, Haifa-Allee 20, 55128 Mainz, Germany.
Steven SetfordLifeScan Scotland Ltd., Inverness IV2 2ED, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1983-0461
Nicole ThoméPfützner Science & Health Institute, Haifa-Allee 20, 55128 Mainz, Germany.
Geethan SrikanthamoorthyPfützner Science & Health Institute, Haifa-Allee 20, 55128 Mainz, Germany.
Lea WeingärtnerPfützner Science & Health Institute, Haifa-Allee 20, 55128 Mainz, Germany.
Mike GradyLifeScan Scotland Ltd., Inverness IV2 2ED, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8006-1844
Elizabeth HoltLifeScan Global Corp., Malvern, PA 19355, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4329-3379
Andreas PfütznerPfützner Science & Health Institute, Haifa-Allee 20, 55128 Mainz, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2385-0887

Funding

European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program 951933 (ForgetDiabetes)Lifescan Global Corp. Unrestricted grant
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSensors for continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) are now commonly used by people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. However, the response of these devices to potentially interfering nutritional, pharmaceutical, or endogenous substances is barely explored. We previously developed an in vitro test method for continuous and dynamic CGM interference testing and herein explore the sensitivity of the Abbott Libre2 (L2) and Dexcom G6 (G6) sensors to a panel of 68 individual substances.

methodsIn each interference experiment, L2 and G6 sensors were exposed in triplicate to substance gradients from zero to supraphysiological concentrations at a stable glucose concentration of 200 mg/dL. YSI Stat 2300 Plus was used as the glucose reference method. Interference was presumed if the CGM sensors showed a mean bias of at least ±10% from baseline with a tested substance at any given substance concentration.

resultsBoth L2 and G6 sensors showed interference with the following substances: dithiothreitol (maximal bias from baseline: L2/G6: +46%/-18%), galactose (>+100%/+17%), mannose (>+100%/+20%), and N-acetyl-cysteine (+11%/+18%). The following substances were found to interfere with L2 sensors only: ascorbic acid (+48%), ibuprofen (+14%), icodextrin (+10%), methyldopa (+16%), red wine (+12%), and xylose (>+100%). On the other hand, the following substances were found to interfere with G6 sensors only: acetaminophen (>+100%), ethyl alcohol (+12%), gentisic acid (+18%), hydroxyurea (>+100%), l-cysteine (-25%), l-Dopa (+11%), and uric acid (+33%). Additionally, G6 sensors could subsequently not be calibrated for use after exposure to dithiothreitol, gentisic acid, l-cysteine, and mesalazine (sensor fouling).

conclusionsOur standardized dynamic interference testing protocol identified several nutritional, pharmaceutical and endogenous substances that substantially influenced L2 and G6 sensor signals. Clinical trials are now necessary to investigate whether our findings are of relevance during routine care.

Indexed as

Biosensing TechniquesBlood GlucoseBlood Glucose Self-MonitoringContinuous Glucose MonitoringHumansBlood GlucoseAbbott Libre 2continuous glucose monitoringDexcom G6dynamic interference testinginterferents

Identifiers

PMID40218498
PMCPMC11991141

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.