Accuracy and reliability of continuous glucose monitoring systems: a head-to-head comparison
- PMID: 23650900
- PMCID: PMC3746288
- DOI: 10.1089/dia.2013.0049
Accuracy and reliability of continuous glucose monitoring systems: a head-to-head comparison
Abstract
Objective: This study assessed the accuracy and reliability of three continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems.
Research design and methods: We studied the Animas® (West Chester, PA) Vibe™ with Dexcom® (San Diego, CA) G4™ version A sensor (G4A), the Abbott Diabetes Care (Alameda, CA) Freestyle® Navigator I (NAV), and the Medtronic (Northridge, CA) Paradigm® with Enlite™ sensor (ENL) in 20 patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus. All systems were investigated both in a clinical research center (CRC) and at home. In the CRC, patients received a meal with a delayed and increased insulin dose to induce a postprandial glucose peak and nadir. Hereafter, randomization determined which two of the three systems would be worn at home until the end of functioning, attempting use beyond manufacturer-specified lifetime. Patients performed at least five reference finger sticks per day. An analysis of variance was performed on all data points ≥15 min apart.
Results: Overall average mean absolute relative difference (MARD) (SD) measured at the CRC was 16.5% (14.3%) for NAV and 16.4% (15.6%) for ENL, outperforming G4A at 20.5% (18.2%) (P<0.001). Overall MARD when assessed at home was 14.5% (16.7%) for NAV and 16.5 (18.8%) for G4A, outperforming ENL at 18.9% (23.6%) (P=0.006). Median time until end of functioning was similar: 10.0 (1.0) days for G4A, 8.0 (3.5) days for NAV, and 8.0 (1.5) days for ENL (P=0.119).
Conclusions: In the CRC, G4A was less accurate than NAV and ENL sensors, which seemed comparable. However, at home, ENL was less accurate than NAV and G4A. Moreover, CGM systems often show sufficient accuracy to be used beyond manufacturer-specified lifetime.
Figures



Similar articles
-
Accuracy of two continuous glucose monitoring systems: a head-to-head comparison under clinical research centre and daily life conditions.Diabetes Obes Metab. 2015 Apr;17(4):343-9. doi: 10.1111/dom.12378. Epub 2014 Sep 10. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2015. PMID: 25132320 Free PMC article.
-
Evaluation of subcutaneous glucose monitoring systems under routine environmental conditions in patients with type 1 diabetes.Diabetes Obes Metab. 2017 Jul;19(7):1051-1055. doi: 10.1111/dom.12907. Epub 2017 Mar 16. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2017. PMID: 28205324
-
FreeStyle Libre and Dexcom G4 Platinum sensors: Accuracy comparisons during two weeks of home use and use during experimentally induced glucose excursions.Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2018 Feb;28(2):180-186. doi: 10.1016/j.numecd.2017.10.023. Epub 2017 Nov 11. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2018. PMID: 29258716 Clinical Trial.
-
Continuous glucose monitoring in type 1 diabetes.Endocrine. 2013 Feb;43(1):41-50. doi: 10.1007/s12020-012-9765-1. Epub 2012 Aug 28. Endocrine. 2013. PMID: 22926738 Review.
-
Comparisons of Fifth-, Sixth-, and Seventh-Generation Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems.J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2024 Jan;18(1):143-147. doi: 10.1177/19322968221099879. Epub 2022 Jun 13. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2024. PMID: 35695305 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
Stacked LSTM based deep recurrent neural network with kalman smoothing for blood glucose prediction.BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2021 Mar 16;21(1):101. doi: 10.1186/s12911-021-01462-5. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2021. PMID: 33726723 Free PMC article.
-
Benefits and Limitations of MARD as a Performance Parameter for Continuous Glucose Monitoring in the Interstitial Space.J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2020 Jan;14(1):135-150. doi: 10.1177/1932296819855670. Epub 2019 Jun 19. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2020. PMID: 31216870 Free PMC article.
-
Interruption of Continuous Glucose Monitoring: Frequency and Adverse Consequences.J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2024 Sep;18(5):1096-1101. doi: 10.1177/19322968231156572. Epub 2023 Feb 23. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2024. PMID: 36824046 Free PMC article.
-
Feasibility of a Glucose Manipulation Procedure for the Standardized Performance Evaluation of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems.J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2025 Feb 24:19322968251317526. doi: 10.1177/19322968251317526. Online ahead of print. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2025. PMID: 39989334 Free PMC article.
-
Accuracy of two continuous glucose monitoring systems: a head-to-head comparison under clinical research centre and daily life conditions.Diabetes Obes Metab. 2015 Apr;17(4):343-9. doi: 10.1111/dom.12378. Epub 2014 Sep 10. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2015. PMID: 25132320 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Wentholt IM. Hart AA. Hoekstra JB. Devries JH. Relationship between interstitial and blood glucose in type 1 diabetes patients: delay and the push-pull phenomenon revisited. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2007;9:169–175. - PubMed
-
- Wentholt IM. Vollebregt MA. Hart AA. Hoekstra JB. Devries JH. Comparison of a needle-type and a microdialysis continuous glucose monitor in type 1 diabetic patients. Diabetes Care. 2005;28:2871–2876. - PubMed
-
- Mastrototaro J. Shin J. Marcus A. Sulur G. The accuracy and efficacy of real-time continuous glucose monitoring sensor in patients with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2008;10:385–390. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
Associated data
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical