Accuracy of Dexcom G6 Pro and G7 Continuous Glucose Monitors in Patients Treated with Maintenance Dialysis
Authors' conclusion
Among patients with diabetes treated with maintenance dialysis, CGM measurements of glucose had high correlation with SMBG, with better performance of the G7 compared with G6 Pro. MARD was higher than previously reported in nondialysis populations, but most values fell within clinically acceptable ranges. While issues around lag time, sensor placement, and interfering substances that may impact CGM performance warrant further investigation, our study findings support the use of CGM to evaluate glycemia in the dialysis population.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with diabetes on maintenance dialysis (11 hemodialysis, 1 PD) wearing concurrent G6 Pro and G7 continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) for 10 days; mean age 50 years, 50% female, 92% insulin users245 self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) measurements
- Participants
- 12 patients
- Comparison
- G6 Pro and G7 CGM vs SMBG
- Outcome
- Accuracy of CGM vs SMBG: Pearson correlation, mean absolute relative difference (MARD), Diabetes Technology Society (DTS) error grids, lag time
- Follow-up
- 10 days
Methodological details178 days of CGM in total
- 178 days of CGM in total
Performance
As reported in the abstract
CGM accuracy vs SMBG
| Outcome | G6 Pro | G7 |
|---|---|---|
| Pearson correlation with SMBG | 0.87 | 0.88 |
| MARD vs SMBG | 21.2% | 16.7% |
| Clinically acceptable (DTS Zones A/B) | 96.7% | 98.0% |
- Pearson correlation G6 Pro vs G7
- 0.95
Further findings
| Outcome | G6 Pro | G7 |
|---|---|---|
| MARD excluding one PD participant with highly variable glucose | 18.3% | 13.5% |
Lag time and variability
- Greater lag times than previously seen in nondialysis populations; substantial between- and within-person variability in CGM performance
Original publication
Accuracy of Dexcom G6 Pro and G7 Continuous Glucose Monitors in Patients Treated with Maintenance Dialysis. Diabetes Technol Ther. Published 18 August 2025. doi:10. 1177/ 15209156251368934
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →