» Articles » PMID: 29923775

Performance of a Factory-Calibrated Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring System Utilizing an Automated Sensor Applicator

Overview
Date 2018 Jun 21
PMID 29923775
Citations 83
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: This study assessed the accuracy of a factory-calibrated 10-day real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system (G6), which includes an automated sensor applicator.

Methods: Seventy-six participants with insulin-treated diabetes were enrolled at four U.S. sites as part of a larger study of G6 system performance. In-clinic visits for frequent comparative blood glucose measurements using a reference instrument (YSI) were conducted on days 1, 4-5, 7, and/or 10 of system use. Accuracy evaluation included the proportion of CGM values that were within ±20% of YSI reference value for glucose levels >100 mg/dL and ±20 mg/dL for YSI glucose levels ≤100 mg/dL (%20/20), the analogous %15/15 and %30/30, and the mean absolute relative difference (MARD) between temporally matched CGM and YSI values. Participants calibrated the systems once daily. Raw sensor data were reprocessed using assigned sensor codes and a factory-calibration algorithm.

Results: Reprocessed data from 62 participants (25 adults and 37 children and adolescents of ages 6-17 years; 3532 YSI-CGM pairs) were analyzed. The G6 system's overall %20/20 was 93.9% (adults, 92.5%; children and adolescents, 96.2%), its %15/15 was 83.3% (adults, 78.3%; children and adolescents, 91.1%), and its MARD was 9.0% (adults, 9.8%; children and adolescents, 7.7%). Overall day-1 %20/20 accuracy was 92.2%, %15/15 was 81.5%, and MARD was 9.3%. Accuracy was maintained across 10 days of use and various glucose concentration ranges in both adults and children and adolescents.

Conclusions: The G6 system utilizing an automated sensor applicator provides accurate glucose readings in adults and children and adolescents throughout the 10-day sensor life.

Citing Articles

Impact of Dietary Intake and Cardiorespiratory Fitness on Glycemic Variability in Adolescents: An Observational Study.

Ge M, Lebby S, Chowkwale S, Harrison C, Palmer G, Loud K Curr Dev Nutr. 2025; 9(2):104547.

PMID: 39996052 PMC: 11847740. DOI: 10.1016/j.cdnut.2025.104547.


International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes Clinical Practice Consensus Guidelines 2024 Diabetes Technologies: Glucose Monitoring.

Tauschman M, Cardona-Hernandez R, DeSalvo D, Hood K, Laptev D, Lindholm Olinder A Horm Res Paediatr. 2025; 97(6):615-635.

PMID: 39884260 PMC: 11854985. DOI: 10.1159/000543156.


Continuous Glucose Monitoring-New Diagnostic Tool in Complex Pathophysiological Disorder of Glucose Metabolism in Children and Adolescents with Obesity.

Simunovic M, Kumric M, Rusic D, Paradzik Simunovic M, Bozic J Diagnostics (Basel). 2025; 14(24.

PMID: 39767162 PMC: 11674695. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics14242801.


Evaluating the precision and reliability of real-time continuous glucose monitoring systems in ambulatory settings: a systematic review.

Davila-Ruales V, Gilon L, Gomez A, Munoz O, Serrano M, Henao D Ther Adv Endocrinol Metab. 2024; 15:20420188241304459.

PMID: 39669532 PMC: 11635893. DOI: 10.1177/20420188241304459.


Predicting risk for nocturnal hypoglycemia after physical activity in children with type 1 diabetes.

Leutheuser H, Bartholet M, Marx A, Pfister M, Burckhardt M, Bachmann S Front Med (Lausanne). 2024; 11:1439218.

PMID: 39526244 PMC: 11543467. DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1439218.


References
1.
Tamborlane W, Beck R, Bode B, Buckingham B, Peter Chase H, Clemons R . Continuous glucose monitoring and intensive treatment of type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2008; 359(14):1464-76. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa0805017. View

2.
Polonsky W, Hessler D . Perceived accuracy in continuous glucose monitoring: understanding the impact on patients. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2014; 9(2):339-41. PMC: 4604572. DOI: 10.1177/1932296814559302. View

3.
Klonoff D, Lias C, Vigersky R, Clarke W, Parkes J, Sacks D . The surveillance error grid. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2015; 8(4):658-72. PMC: 4764212. DOI: 10.1177/1932296814539589. View

4.
Kovatchev B, Wakeman C, Breton M, Kost G, Louie R, Tran N . Computing the surveillance error grid analysis: procedure and examples. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2015; 8(4):673-84. PMC: 4764239. DOI: 10.1177/1932296814539590. View

5.
Soupal J, Petruzelkova L, Flekac M, Pelcl T, Matoulek M, Dankova M . Comparison of Different Treatment Modalities for Type 1 Diabetes, Including Sensor-Augmented Insulin Regimens, in 52 Weeks of Follow-Up: A COMISAIR Study. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2016; 18(9):532-8. PMC: 5035377. DOI: 10.1089/dia.2016.0171. View