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