FreeStyle Libre 血糖连续监测仪第三代算法与第一代算法的准确性差异。

IF 0.7 Q4 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL JOURNAL OF MEDICAL INVESTIGATION Pub Date : 2024-01-01 DOI:10.2152/jmi.71.225
Takashi Murata, Naoki Sakane, Yushi Hirota, Masao Toyoda, Munehide Matsuhisa, Akio Kuroda, Arata Itoh, Shu Meguro, Junnosuke Miura, Yuka Matoba, Ken Kato, Shota Suzuki, Akira Shimada
{"title":"FreeStyle Libre 血糖连续监测仪第三代算法与第一代算法的准确性差异。","authors":"Takashi Murata, Naoki Sakane, Yushi Hirota, Masao Toyoda, Munehide Matsuhisa, Akio Kuroda, Arata Itoh, Shu Meguro, Junnosuke Miura, Yuka Matoba, Ken Kato, Shota Suzuki, Akira Shimada","doi":"10.2152/jmi.71.225","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>FreeStyle Libre uses the algorithm to calculate the sensor glucose (SG) levels. The manufacturer announced that they had changed the algorithm from the first generation (Gen. 1) to the third generation (Gen. 3). To assess the difference, we conducted an observational study to analyze the characteristics of the measurements by these two algorithms compared to the capillary blood glucose (BG) levels.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants with type 1 diabetes wore two FreeStyle Libre sensors, one on the left arm used with Gen. 3 algorithm, and another on the right arm used in combination with the FreeStyle Libre Reader with Gen. 1 algorithm.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Data were collected from 11 participants. The Bland-Altman analysis of the measurements by Gen. 3 algorithm showed bias of 7.4 mg/dl and no proportional bias was observed (r=0.130). In contrast, the Bland-Altman analysis of the measurements by Gen. 1 algorithm showed bias of 4.4 mg/dl and proportional bias was observed (r=0.424). The MARD of Gen. 3 algorithm and Gen. 1 algorithm was 11.9±9.0% and 9.7±8.3%, respectively (P=0.053).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>No proportional bias in the measurements by Gen. 3 algorithm was observed, but in those by Gen. 1 algorithm. J. Med. Invest. 71 : 225-231, August, 2024.</p>","PeriodicalId":46910,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF MEDICAL INVESTIGATION","volume":"71 3.4","pages":"225-231"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Difference in the accuracy of the third-generation algorithm and the first-generation algorithm of FreeStyle Libre continuous glucose monitoring device.\",\"authors\":\"Takashi Murata, Naoki Sakane, Yushi Hirota, Masao Toyoda, Munehide Matsuhisa, Akio Kuroda, Arata Itoh, Shu Meguro, Junnosuke Miura, Yuka Matoba, Ken Kato, Shota Suzuki, Akira Shimada\",\"doi\":\"10.2152/jmi.71.225\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>FreeStyle Libre uses the algorithm to calculate the sensor glucose (SG) levels. The manufacturer announced that they had changed the algorithm from the first generation (Gen. 1) to the third generation (Gen. 3). To assess the difference, we conducted an observational study to analyze the characteristics of the measurements by these two algorithms compared to the capillary blood glucose (BG) levels.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants with type 1 diabetes wore two FreeStyle Libre sensors, one on the left arm used with Gen. 3 algorithm, and another on the right arm used in combination with the FreeStyle Libre Reader with Gen. 1 algorithm.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Data were collected from 11 participants. The Bland-Altman analysis of the measurements by Gen. 3 algorithm showed bias of 7.4 mg/dl and no proportional bias was observed (r=0.130). In contrast, the Bland-Altman analysis of the measurements by Gen. 1 algorithm showed bias of 4.4 mg/dl and proportional bias was observed (r=0.424). The MARD of Gen. 3 algorithm and Gen. 1 algorithm was 11.9±9.0% and 9.7±8.3%, respectively (P=0.053).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>No proportional bias in the measurements by Gen. 3 algorithm was observed, but in those by Gen. 1 algorithm. J. Med. Invest. 71 : 225-231, August, 2024.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46910,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JOURNAL OF MEDICAL INVESTIGATION\",\"volume\":\"71 3.4\",\"pages\":\"225-231\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JOURNAL OF MEDICAL INVESTIGATION\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2152/jmi.71.225\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL OF MEDICAL INVESTIGATION","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2152/jmi.71.225","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:FreeStyle Libre 使用算法计算传感器葡萄糖 (SG) 水平。制造商宣布已将算法从第一代(Gen.1)改为第三代(Gen.3)。为了评估两者之间的差异,我们进行了一项观察研究,分析这两种算法的测量结果与毛细血管血糖 (BG) 水平相比的特点:方法:1 型糖尿病患者佩戴两个 FreeStyle Libre 传感器,一个在左臂上使用第 3 代算法,另一个在右臂上与 FreeStyle Libre 阅读器结合使用第 1 代算法:结果:共收集了 11 名参与者的数据。通过对 Gen.3 算法的测量结果进行 Bland-Altman 分析,发现偏差为 7.4 mg/dl,且未观察到比例偏差(r=0.130)。相比之下,用 Gen.1 算法进行的测量结果的 Bland-Altman 分析显示偏差为 4.4 毫克/分升,并观察到比例偏差(r=0.424)。Gen.3 算法和 Gen.1 算法的 MARD 分别为 11.9±9.0% 和 9.7±8.3%(P=0.053):结论:第三代算法的测量结果没有比例偏差,但第一代算法的测量结果存在比例偏差。J. Med.Invest.71 : 225-231, August, 2024.
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
Difference in the accuracy of the third-generation algorithm and the first-generation algorithm of FreeStyle Libre continuous glucose monitoring device.

Background: FreeStyle Libre uses the algorithm to calculate the sensor glucose (SG) levels. The manufacturer announced that they had changed the algorithm from the first generation (Gen. 1) to the third generation (Gen. 3). To assess the difference, we conducted an observational study to analyze the characteristics of the measurements by these two algorithms compared to the capillary blood glucose (BG) levels.

Methods: Participants with type 1 diabetes wore two FreeStyle Libre sensors, one on the left arm used with Gen. 3 algorithm, and another on the right arm used in combination with the FreeStyle Libre Reader with Gen. 1 algorithm.

Results: Data were collected from 11 participants. The Bland-Altman analysis of the measurements by Gen. 3 algorithm showed bias of 7.4 mg/dl and no proportional bias was observed (r=0.130). In contrast, the Bland-Altman analysis of the measurements by Gen. 1 algorithm showed bias of 4.4 mg/dl and proportional bias was observed (r=0.424). The MARD of Gen. 3 algorithm and Gen. 1 algorithm was 11.9±9.0% and 9.7±8.3%, respectively (P=0.053).

Conclusion: No proportional bias in the measurements by Gen. 3 algorithm was observed, but in those by Gen. 1 algorithm. J. Med. Invest. 71 : 225-231, August, 2024.

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
JOURNAL OF MEDICAL INVESTIGATION
JOURNAL OF MEDICAL INVESTIGATION MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
55
期刊最新文献
Changes in intestinal microbiota and biochemical parameters in patients with inflammatory bowel disease and irritable bowel syndrome induced by the prolonged addition of soluble fibers to usual drug therapy. Characterization of Outer Membrane Vesicles Produced by Vibrio vulnificus. Clarification of Psychiatric Nurses' Intentions and Analysis Contents in Observing Schizophrenia Patient. Current pharmacotherapies for advanced lung cancer with pre-existing interstitial lung disease : A literature review and future perspectives. Feasibility of laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery for gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumor with tumor diameter of >5 cm.
×
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