Wir verwenden Cookies

Wir nutzen Cookies auf unserer Website. Einige von ihnen sind essenziell, während andere uns helfen, diese Website und Ihre Erfahrung zu verbessern.

Analyse & Performance

Wissenschaftliche Publikation

A head‐to‐head comparison of personal and professional continuous glucose monitoring systems in people with type 1 diabetes: hypoglycaemia remains the weak spot

Publikation aus Health

Moser O, Pandis M, Aberer F, Kojzar H, Hochfellner D, Elsayed H, Motschnig M, Augustin T, Kreuzer P, Pieber TR, Sourij H, Mader JK

Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism , 11/2018


To compare the performance of a professional (proCGM) and a personal continuous glucose monitoring (persCGM) system worn in parallel under standardised conditions in individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Two CGM systems (iPro2 - proCGM; Minimed 640G - persCGM) worn in parallel using the same sensor (Enlite 2) were compared. Ten people with T1D were included in this single-centre, open-label study in which CGM performance was evaluated. The study consisted of a 24-hour inpatient phase (meals, exercise, glycaemic challenges) and a 4-day home phase. Analyses included fulfilment of ISO 15197:2013 criteria, mean absolute relative difference (MARD), Parkes Error Grid and Bland-Altman plots. During the inpatient stay ISO 15197:2013 criteria fulfilment was 58.4% (proCGM) and 57.8% (persCGM). At home the systems met ISO 15197:2013 criteria by 66.5% (proCGM) and 65.3% (persCGM). No difference of MARD in inpatient phase (19.1±16.7% vs. 19.0±19.6; p=0.83) and home-phase (18.6±26.8% vs. 17.4±21.3%, p=0.87) was observed. All sensors performed less accurate during hypoglycaemia. ProCGM and persCGM showed similar performance during day- and night-time for the inpatient and the home-phase. However, sensor performance was reduced during hypoglycaemia for both systems. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.