To Örebro University

oru.seÖrebro University Publications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Comparator Data Characteristics and Testing Procedures for the Clinical Performance Evaluation of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems
Institut für Diabetes-Technologie Forschungs- und Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH an der Universität Ulm, 580024, Ulm, Germany.
Institut fur Diabetes-Technologie Forschungs- und Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH an der Universitat Ulm, 580024, Lise-Meitner-Strasse 8/2, Ulm, Germany.
Diabetes Center Berne, Freiburgstrasse 3, Bern, Switzerland.
AMCR Institute, 625 West Citracado Parkway, Suite 112, Escondido, California, United States.
Show others and affiliations
2024 (English)In: Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics, ISSN 1520-9156, E-ISSN 1557-8593, Vol. 26, no 4, p. 263-275Article, review/survey (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Comparing the performance of different continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems is challenging due to the lack of comprehensive guidelines for clinical study design. In particular, the absence of concise requirements for the distribution of comparator (reference) blood glucose (BG) concentrations and their rate of change (RoC), that are used to evaluate CGM performance, impairs comparability. For this article, several experts in the field of CGM performance testing have collaborated to propose characteristics of the distribution of comparator measurements that should be collected during CGM performance testing. Specifically, it is proposed that at least 7.5% of comparator BG concentrations are <70 mg/dL (3.9 mmol/L) and >300 mg/dL (16.7 mmol/L), respectively and that at least 7.5% of BG-RoC combinations indicate fast BG changes with impending hypo- or hyperglycemia, respectively. These proposed characteristics of the comparator data can facilitate the harmonization of testing conditions across different studies and CGM systems and ensure that the most relevant scenarios representing real-life situations are established during performance testing. In addition, a study protocol and testing procedure for the manipulation of glucose levels is suggested that enables the collection of comparator data with these characteristics. This work is an important step towards establishing a future standard for the performance evaluation of CGM systems.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Mary Ann Liebert, 2024. Vol. 26, no 4, p. 263-275
Keywords [en]
Continuous glucose monitoring, Clinical performance evaluation, Standardization, Comparator data characteristics, Testing procedures, Glucose rate of change
National Category
Endocrinology and Diabetes
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-110639DOI: 10.1089/dia.2023.0465ISI: 001158514600001PubMedID: 38194227Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85190175330OAI: oai:DiVA.org:oru-110639DiVA, id: diva2:1825877
Note

The authors thank the Diabetes Center Berne and the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine for supporting this work. 

Available from: 2024-01-10 Created: 2024-01-10 Last updated: 2025-01-20Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopus

Authority records

Jendle, Johan

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Jendle, Johan
By organisation
School of Medical Sciences
In the same journal
Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics
Endocrinology and Diabetes

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 33 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf