2015 · Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · open access
Accuracy of two continuous glucose monitoring systems: a head-to-head comparison under clinical research centre and daily life conditions
Kropff et al.
The finding, in our words
In a head-to-head study of 24 adults with type 1 diabetes, the Dexcom G4 Platinum sensor had a lower overall MARD than the Medtronic Enlite sensor (13.6% vs 16.6% in the clinical research centre and 13.8% vs 17.9% overall), with both devices showing reduced accuracy in the hypoglycaemic range and the Dexcom sensor less affected by this impairment.
A paraphrase to the Library’s standard, never the abstract. The source is one link away and is always the authority.
In children with type 1 diabetes, ambulatory glucose profile showed mean absolute relative difference of 9.56% versus laboratory random glucose and 15.07% versus capillary glucose, with linear regression coefficients of 0.93 and 0.89 respectively, indicating acceptable agreement for outpatient glycaemic monitoring.
In adults with type 1 diabetes, Dexcom G7 and FreeStyle Libre 3 showed high accuracy during physical activity, whereas the Simplera system was less accurate; this matters for selecting devices in decentralised monitoring.
In a Phase 1 crossover study of etrasimod, self-collected blood microsamples yielded pharmacokinetic exposures comparable to conventional venous sampling, both with and without participant practice sessions. Continuous wearable sensors concurrently enabled real-time remote monitoring of safety vital signs and electrocardiograms, demonstrating the viability of hybrid decentralised designs in early-phase clinical trials.
Noninvasive salivary measurements of creatinine, cystatin C and urea, and fingerstick capillary blood testing, can approximate gold‑standard laboratory results for kidney function. This could enable more frequent, home‑based monitoring to detect CKD progression and AKI episodes without the burdens of conventional venepuncture and laboratory processing.
In 36 participants undergoing a meal challenge, non-invasive optical glucose prediction achieved a mean absolute relative difference of 14.4% compared with YSI reference values, with 100% of readings in consensus error grid zones A and B. Capillary measurements using the device's invasive component showed 9.2% MARD, demonstrating the feasibility of calibrated optical monitoring for non-invasive glucose tracking.