Skip to main content

Table 2 Summary of studies investigating the accuracy of more recent MIDs in the hypoglycaemic range

From: Non-invasive and minimally invasive glucose monitoring devices: a systematic review and meta-analysis on diagnostic accuracy of hypoglycaemia detection

Device (study) Population General accuracy (n) Accuracy in hypoglycaemia (n)
Dexcom G6
(Castorino, 2020) [40]
32 pregnant participants with T1DM, T2M, GDM Overall MARD 10.3% (734) 54–69 mg/dl
MAD 6.9 mg/dl
79.2% in %15/15
(24)
40–53 mg/dl
MAD 7.9 mg/dl
100% in %15/15
(8)
Dexcom G6
(Welsh, 2019) [41]
49 participants with T1DM Overall MARD 7.7% (1387) < 70 mg/dl
MARD 13.3%
MAD 9.1 mg/dl
81.5% in %15/15
(81)
Dexcom G6
(Shah, 2018) [42]
Reprocessed data of 76 participants with T1DM and T2DM Overall MARD 9.0% (3532) < 70 mg/dl
MARD 9.5%
80% in %15/15
(185)
Free Style Libre 2
(Alva, 2020) [38]
273 participants with T1DM and T2DM Overall MARD 9.2% (adults), 9.7% (children) (25510) < 70 mg/dl
Adults:
94.3% in %15/15
(3473)
89.3% true detection rate, 86% true alarm rate
Children:
96.1% in %15/15
(882)
Eversense and Freestyle Libre
(Fokkert, 2020) [43]
23 participants with T1DM Eversense:
MARD 17% (exercise), 13% (normal daily activity)
Freestyle Libre:
MARD 20% (exercise), 12% (normal daily activity)
(1722)
< 70 mg/dl
Eversense:
> 85% within ±15 mg/dl
72% (exercise)
76% (normal daily activity)
Freestyle Libre:
> 85% within ±15 mg/dl
61% (exercise)
78% (normal daily activity)
  1. T1DM diabetes type 1, T2DM diabetes type 2, GDM gestational diabetes mellitus, n number of matched pairs, MARD mean absolute relative difference, MAD mean absolute difference in mg/dl