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
Review
. 2020 Aug;22(8):613-622.
doi: 10.1089/dia.2019.0434. Epub 2020 Mar 4.

A Review of Continuous Glucose Monitoring-Based Composite Metrics for Glycemic Control

Affiliations
Review

A Review of Continuous Glucose Monitoring-Based Composite Metrics for Glycemic Control

Michelle Nguyen et al. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2020 Aug.

Abstract

We performed a literature review of composite metrics for describing the quality of glycemic control, as measured by continuous glucose monitors (CGMs). Nine composite metrics that describe CGM data were identified. They are described in detail along with their advantages and disadvantages. The primary benefit to using composite metrics in clinical practice is to be able to quickly evaluate a patient's glycemic control in the form of a single number that accounts for multiple dimensions of glycemic control. Very little data exist about (1) how to select the optimal components of composite metrics for CGM; (2) how to best score individual components of composite metrics; and (3) how to correlate composite metric scores with empiric outcomes. Nevertheless, composite metrics are an attractive type of scoring system to present clinicians with a single number that accounts for many dimensions of their patients' glycemia. If a busy health care professional is looking for a single-number summary statistic to describe glucose levels monitored by a CGM, then a composite metric has many attractive features.

Keywords: Composite index; Composite metrics; Continuous glucose monitoring; Diabetes treatment; Glycemic control.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.
PRISMA flow diagram for article inclusion. PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.

References

    1. Apgar V: A proposal for a new method of evaluation of the newborn infant. Curr Res Anesth Analg 1953;32:260–267. - PubMed
    1. Knaus WA, Zimmerman JE, Wagner DP, et al.: APACHE-acute physiology and chronic health evaluation: a physiologically based classification system. Crit Care Med 1981; 9:591–597. - PubMed
    1. Galetta KM, Liu M, Leong DF, et al.: The King-Devick test of rapid number naming for concussion detection: meta-analysis and systematic review of the literature. Concussion 2016;1:CNC8. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Khan S, Mahara A, Hyams ES, et al.: Prostate cancer detection using composite impedance metric. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2016;35:2513–2523. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Poretto V, Petracca M, Saiote C, et al.: A composite measure to explore visual disability in primary progressive multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler J Exp Transl Clin 2017;3: 2055217317709620. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types