Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2004 Aug;27(8):1922-8.
doi: 10.2337/diacare.27.8.1922.

Evaluating the accuracy of continuous glucose-monitoring sensors: continuous glucose-error grid analysis illustrated by TheraSense Freestyle Navigator data

Affiliations

Evaluating the accuracy of continuous glucose-monitoring sensors: continuous glucose-error grid analysis illustrated by TheraSense Freestyle Navigator data

Boris P Kovatchev et al. Diabetes Care. 2004 Aug.

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this study was to introduce continuous glucose-error grid analysis (CG-EGA) as a method of evaluating the accuracy of continuous glucose-monitoring sensors in terms of both accurate blood glucose (BG) values and accurate direction and rate of BG fluctuations and to illustrate the application of CG-EGA with data from the TheraSense Freestyle Navigator.

Research design and methods: We approach the design of CG-EGA from the understanding that continuous glucose sensors (CGSs) allow the observation of BG fluctuations as a process in time. We account for specifics of process characterization (location, speed, and direction) and for biological limitations of the observed processes (time lags associated with interstitial sensors). CG-EGA includes two interacting components: 1) point-error grid analysis (P-EGA) evaluates the sensor's accuracy in terms of correct presentation of BG values and 2) rate-error grid analysis (R-EGA) assesses the sensor's ability to capture the direction and rate of BG fluctuations.

Results: CG-EGA revealed that the accuracy of the Navigator, measured as a percentage of accurate readings plus benign errors, was significantly different at hypoglycemia (73.5%), euglycemia (99%), and hyperglycemia (95.4%). Failure to detect hypoglycemia was the most common error. The point accuracy of the Navigator was relatively stable over a wide range of BG rates of change, and its rate accuracy decreased significantly at high BG levels.

Conclusions: Traditional self-monitoring of BG device evaluation methods fail to capture the important temporal characteristics of the continuous glucose-monitoring process. CG-EGA addresses this problem, thus providing a comprehensive assessment of sensor accuracy that appears to be a useful adjunct to other CGS performance measures.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types