连续血糖监测校准自由间质传感器与血糖仪毛细血管血糖监测之间的血糖读数差异:两个案例的分析

Phaik Ling Quah , Sally Mun Hua Chai , Kok Hian Tan
{"title":"连续血糖监测校准自由间质传感器与血糖仪毛细血管血糖监测之间的血糖读数差异:两个案例的分析","authors":"Phaik Ling Quah ,&nbsp;Sally Mun Hua Chai ,&nbsp;Kok Hian Tan","doi":"10.1016/j.metop.2024.100282","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Aim</h3><p>To assess the differences in glucose readings between the continuous glucose monitoring calibration-free interstitial sensors versus capillary blood glucose monitoring by glucometer.</p></div><div><h3>Study design</h3><p>Two healthy non-pregnant volunteers participated in the study, and wore simultaneously both the calibration-free Freestyle Libre and the Dexcom G6 sensor. Glucose values were recorded before and after meals during breakfast, lunch, and dinner on three separate days by either scanning the Freestyle Libre CGM sensor with a smartphone, or obtaining glucose readings real-time through the Dexcom G6 CLARITY mobile application. Blood glucose values were recorded using the Accu-Chek Active glucose meter. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for paired non-parametric data to compare glucose readings between groups.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The average glucose values obtained from the Dexcom G6 CGM consistently registered higher (6.54 ± 0.80 mmol/L) and those from the Freestyle Libre (5.49 ± 0.65 mmol/L) consistently lower, from the glucometer (6.17 ± 0.55 mmol/L), with p-value &lt;0.05 between groups. In the three-way comparison, the Dexcom G6 CGM sensor yielded the highest values, followed by the glucose meter, and finally the Freestyle Libre CGM sensor</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Both CGM systems exhibited discrepancies from blood glucose (BG) measurements, and variations were observed among the different CGM systems themselves.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":94141,"journal":{"name":"Metabolism open","volume":"22 ","pages":"Article 100282"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589936824000148/pdfft?md5=10c1867844bdfaed4060c53c705bdd91&pid=1-s2.0-S2589936824000148-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Differences in glucose readings between the continuous glucose monitoring calibration free interstitial sensors versus capillary blood glucose monitoring by glucometer: An analysis of two cases\",\"authors\":\"Phaik Ling Quah ,&nbsp;Sally Mun Hua Chai ,&nbsp;Kok Hian Tan\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.metop.2024.100282\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Aim</h3><p>To assess the differences in glucose readings between the continuous glucose monitoring calibration-free interstitial sensors versus capillary blood glucose monitoring by glucometer.</p></div><div><h3>Study design</h3><p>Two healthy non-pregnant volunteers participated in the study, and wore simultaneously both the calibration-free Freestyle Libre and the Dexcom G6 sensor. Glucose values were recorded before and after meals during breakfast, lunch, and dinner on three separate days by either scanning the Freestyle Libre CGM sensor with a smartphone, or obtaining glucose readings real-time through the Dexcom G6 CLARITY mobile application. Blood glucose values were recorded using the Accu-Chek Active glucose meter. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for paired non-parametric data to compare glucose readings between groups.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The average glucose values obtained from the Dexcom G6 CGM consistently registered higher (6.54 ± 0.80 mmol/L) and those from the Freestyle Libre (5.49 ± 0.65 mmol/L) consistently lower, from the glucometer (6.17 ± 0.55 mmol/L), with p-value &lt;0.05 between groups. In the three-way comparison, the Dexcom G6 CGM sensor yielded the highest values, followed by the glucose meter, and finally the Freestyle Libre CGM sensor</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Both CGM systems exhibited discrepancies from blood glucose (BG) measurements, and variations were observed among the different CGM systems themselves.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94141,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Metabolism open\",\"volume\":\"22 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100282\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589936824000148/pdfft?md5=10c1867844bdfaed4060c53c705bdd91&pid=1-s2.0-S2589936824000148-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Metabolism open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589936824000148\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Metabolism open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589936824000148","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的评估连续葡萄糖监测免校准间质传感器与使用血糖仪进行毛细血管血糖监测之间的葡萄糖读数差异。通过智能手机扫描 Freestyle Libre CGM 传感器或通过 Dexcom G6 CLARITY 移动应用程序实时获取葡萄糖读数,分别在三天的早餐、午餐和晚餐前后记录血糖值。使用 Accu-Chek Active 血糖仪记录血糖值。结果从 Dexcom G6 CGM 获得的平均血糖值持续较高(6.54 ± 0.80 mmol/L),而从 Freestyle Libre 获得的平均血糖值持续较低(5.49 ± 0.65 mmol/L),从血糖仪获得的平均血糖值持续较低(6.17 ± 0.55 mmol/L),组间 p 值为 0.05。结论两种 CGM 系统的血糖 (BG) 测量值均存在差异,不同 CGM 系统之间也存在差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Differences in glucose readings between the continuous glucose monitoring calibration free interstitial sensors versus capillary blood glucose monitoring by glucometer: An analysis of two cases

Aim

To assess the differences in glucose readings between the continuous glucose monitoring calibration-free interstitial sensors versus capillary blood glucose monitoring by glucometer.

Study design

Two healthy non-pregnant volunteers participated in the study, and wore simultaneously both the calibration-free Freestyle Libre and the Dexcom G6 sensor. Glucose values were recorded before and after meals during breakfast, lunch, and dinner on three separate days by either scanning the Freestyle Libre CGM sensor with a smartphone, or obtaining glucose readings real-time through the Dexcom G6 CLARITY mobile application. Blood glucose values were recorded using the Accu-Chek Active glucose meter. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for paired non-parametric data to compare glucose readings between groups.

Results

The average glucose values obtained from the Dexcom G6 CGM consistently registered higher (6.54 ± 0.80 mmol/L) and those from the Freestyle Libre (5.49 ± 0.65 mmol/L) consistently lower, from the glucometer (6.17 ± 0.55 mmol/L), with p-value <0.05 between groups. In the three-way comparison, the Dexcom G6 CGM sensor yielded the highest values, followed by the glucose meter, and finally the Freestyle Libre CGM sensor

Conclusion

Both CGM systems exhibited discrepancies from blood glucose (BG) measurements, and variations were observed among the different CGM systems themselves.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Metabolism open
Metabolism open Agricultural and Biological Sciences (General), Endocrinology, Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
40 days
期刊最新文献
Deciphering the mechanisms and effects of hyperglycemia on skeletal muscle atrophy Outdoor environment and obesity: A review of current evidence Understanding the impact of diabetes on bone health: A clinical review Impact of allulose on blood glucose in type 2 diabetes: A meta-analysis of clinical trials The role of novel inflammation-associated biomarkers in diabetic peripheral neuropathy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1