title: Performance evaluation of three continuous glucose monitoring systems: comparison of six sensors per subject in parallel.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  This study is aimed at comparing the performance of three continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems following the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute's POCT05-A guideline, which provides recommendations for performance evaluation of CGM systems.
  
  
  METHODS
  A total of 12 subjects with type 1 diabetes were enrolled in this study. Each subject wore six CGM systems in parallel, two sensors of each CGM system [FreeStyle Navigator™ (Navigator), MiniMed Guardian® REAL-Time with Enlite sensor (Guardian), DexCom™ Seven® Plus 3rd generation (Seven Plus)]. Each sensor was used for the lifetime specified by the manufacturer. To follow POCT05-A recommendations, glucose excursions were induced on two separate occasions, and venous and capillary blood glucose (BG) concentrations were obtained every 15 min for five consecutive hours. Capillary BG concentrations were measured at least once per hour during the day and once at night. Parameters investigated were CGM-to-BG differences [mean absolute relative difference (MARD)] and sensor-to-sensor differences [precision absolute relative difference (PARD)].
  
  
  RESULTS
  Compared with capillary BG reference readings, the Navigator showed the lowest MARD, with 12.1% overall and 24.6% in the hypoglycemic range; for the Guardian and the Seven Plus, MARD was 16.2%/34.9% and 16.3%/32.7%, respectively. PARD also was lowest for the Navigator (9.6%/9.8%), followed by the Seven Plus (16.7%/25.5%) and the Guardian (18.1%/20.2%). During induced glucose excursions, MARD between CGM and BG was, again, lowest for the Navigator (14.3%), followed by the Seven Plus (15.8%) and the Guardian (19.2%).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  In this study, two sensors of each of the three CGM systems were compared in a setting following POCT05-A recommendations. The Navigator CGM system achieved more accurate results than the Guardian or the Seven Plus with respect to MARD and PARD. Performance in the hypoglycemic range was markedly worse for all CGM systems when compared with BG results.
authors.affiliation: Institut für Diabetes-Technologie Forschungs- und Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH an der Universität Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
authors.forename: Guido
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Freckmann
authors.forename: Stefan
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Pleus
authors.forename: Manuela
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Link
authors.forename: Eva
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Zschornack
authors.forename: Hans-Martin
authors.initials: HM
authors.lastname: Klötzer
authors.forename: Cornelia
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Haug
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D015374:Biosensing Techniques / Q000295:instrumentation* / Q000379:methods / Q000592:standards; D001786:Blood Glucose / Q000032:analysis*; D015190:Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods / Q000592:standards; D002138:Calibration; D003922:Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1 / Q000097:blood*; D004867:Equipment Design; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009339:Needles; D015203:Reproducibility of Results
chemical_list: D001786:Blood Glucose
references.citation: Diabetes Technol Ther. 2012 Mar;14(3):225-31
references.pmid: 22145851
references.citation: Diabetes Technol Ther. 2012 Jun;14(6):527-32
references.pmid: 22428621
references.citation: J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2013 Jul 01;7(4):833-41
references.pmid: 23911164
references.citation: Diabetes Care. 2005 Oct;28(10):2412-7
references.pmid: 16186272
references.citation: Diabetes Care. 2013 Apr;36(4):793-800
references.pmid: 23172973
references.citation: Diabetes Technol Ther. 2009 Nov;11(11):689-95
references.pmid: 19905884
references.citation: Diabetes Care. 2006 Dec;29(12):2644-9
references.pmid: 17130198
references.citation: Diabetes Technol Ther. 2008 Aug;10(4):266-72
references.pmid: 18828242
references.citation: Diabetes Obes Metab. 2013 Feb;15(2):130-5
references.pmid: 22974231
references.citation: Diabetes Care. 2013 Feb;36(2):251-9
references.pmid: 23275350
references.citation: Diabetes Care. 2006 Jan;29(1):44-50
references.pmid: 16373894
references.citation: J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2009 Sep 01;3(5):1146-54
references.pmid: 20144429
references.citation: J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2012 Sep 01;6(5):1103-6
references.pmid: 23063036
references.citation: Diabetes Technol Ther. 2009 Feb;11(2):65-72
references.pmid: 19243265
references.citation: J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2011 Jul 01;5(4):853-9
references.pmid: 21880226
references.citation: Diabetes Care. 2008 Jun;31(6):1160-4
references.pmid: 18339974
references.citation: Diabetes Technol Ther. 2009 Dec;11(12):749-55
references.pmid: 20001675
references.citation: Diabetes Care. 2007 May;30(5):1125-30
references.pmid: 17337488
references.citation: Diabet Med. 2009 Jul;26(7):714-21
references.pmid: 19573121
references.citation: Diabetes Technol Ther. 2008 Oct;10(5):385-90
references.pmid: 18715215
references.citation: Diabetes Care. 2007 Jan;30(1):59-64
references.pmid: 17192334
references.citation: J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2010 Sep 01;4(5):1182-92
references.pmid: 20920438
references.citation: J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2013 Jul 01;7(4):824-32
references.pmid: 23911163